All of the officers under criminal investigation were also under police disciplinary investigation. In addition, WMP investigated complaints about three officers who were not subject to criminal investigation. In each of these three cases—including the investigation of complaints about comments made to a journalist by CC Wright in February 1990, summarised in chapter 7—the evidence indicates the investigations were largely conducted in line with the guidance and legislation of the time.
Complaints about Police Constable Roger Cuckson (PC Cuckson) related to his alleged actions on the perimeter track. Two supporters complained that they witnessed a police officer pulling a fellow supporter from the railings at the front of the terraces, and then not checking on the supporter’s wellbeing after he had fallen heavily.
At the start of its complaint report, WMP pointed out that PC Cuckson had acknowledged the incident in his initial account before any complaint was received—so had not sought to conceal what happened—and that that there was no evidence that the supporter had been seriously injured.
Overall, it appears that the complaint was investigated in line with the standards of the day. As part of its investigation, WMP approached the complainant, obtained statements from other witnesses and examined video footage.
The PCA subsequently determined that the complaint was unsubstantiated.
WMP investigated the complaints about PC Scott together and took some relevant steps in doing so. For example, WMP:
used video footage to confirm the identity of the officer complained about
attempted to identify the victim of the assault
sought relevant witnesses
asked the head of WMP’s Mounted Section for his assessment of the incident
Further, the investigation outcome was that PC Scott should receive advice about his future actions. This could be deemed appropriate for the type of incident, insofar as he slapped or swiped at supporters, rather than punching, to prevent injury to the horse and minimise the risk of injury to bystanders.
However, the evidence also suggests that aspects of the investigation did not have a sufficiently broad scope. In particular, WMP did not take sufficient steps to investigate PC Scott’s explanation for why he struck out at supporters. Witness accounts disputed the suggestion that anyone was threatening his horse with a cigarette, and other mounted officers did not recall a horse being burned. It seems reasonable to suggest that in investigating the complaint, WMP could have taken further steps to verify whether there were any official reports of injuries to a police horse, such as veterinary records. The evidence appears to suggest that WMP does not seem to have considered this possibility, focusing instead on confirming PC Scott’s identity, which was not in dispute.
