19. Alleged surveillance of family members of those who died

What was investigated?

The IOPC’s terms of reference included investigating:

Complaints and recordable conduct matters about police surveillance and covert activity linked to the Hillsborough disaster involving family members of those who died, survivors and other complainants linked to the disaster.
 

What was found?

• By 2014, no police force had any records of surveillance of the families of those who died in the disaster. However, one explanation for this could be that records had been (correctly) destroyed after they had been held for the maximum permitted period.

• In line with longstanding policy, the Home Secretary would not confirm or deny whether anyone had been subject to telephone interception (‘phone tapping’) by the police. However, families were directed to the public body that could answer this question.

• In the view of various expert witnesses, the descriptions of intrusive noises during telephone conversations did not indicate that families were subject to lawful surveillance by the police. They all indicated that the subjects of police telephone interception would not hear noises on the line as a result.

• The IOPC was able to provide some families with detailed explanations of incidents involving police intrusion on their everyday lives. Though this explained why the police were involved, it did not justify the manner of police interaction, particularly in one case where officers from WMP were intimidating.

• In one case, an individual appears to have been under overt surveillance by the police for over a week, without good reason. It has not been possible to investigate all instances where people complained they were followed by the police. 

• Some of the incidents cited as indicating police surveillance were not properly recorded or handled by Merseyside Police at the time. This appears to have been the result of errors or poor practice, rather than an attempt to conceal police involvement in the incidents. 
 

Significant new evidence 

Almost of all the evidence around alleged surveillance was new, as these issues had not previously been looked at. The IOPC took statements from a large number of witnesses describing their experiences and why they suspected these to have been a result of police surveillance. In addition, the IOPC contacted expert witnesses in telephone interception, from both the policing perspective and the telecommunications industry. Further, the IOPC used its powers to obtain documents from Merseyside Police, after its initial response to requests for information had been insufficient. 

1. Over the years since the Hillsborough disaster, there have been repeated allegations that family members of those who died, and members of campaign and support groups related to the disaster, were placed under surveillance by the police. The alleged surveillance ranged from telephone interception (that is, that their phone lines were ‘tapped’ so that others could hear their conversations), to individuals reporting being followed. There were also suggestions that: 
    
   • there may have been some form of police involvement in break-ins at homes or Hillsborough-related locations, whether to intimidate campaigners or obtain material related to the disaster and subsequent campaigns
   • the police intruded in different ways on the everyday life of bereaved families 
      
2. After the IOPC investigation into the aftermath of the disaster was first announced, the issue of alleged surveillance was raised in Parliament, with MPs representing constituencies where many families lived asking for an investigation into the matter. The then Home Secretary, Theresa May, agreed that it should be considered by the IOPC, and it was added to the terms of reference.
    
3. The IOPC received 27 complaints relating to alleged police surveillance and/or covert activity, from 25 complainants with connections to the Hillsborough disaster. All 25 alleged that some of their or their families’ telephone conversations had been intercepted by, or at the instruction of, the police. 
    
4. In 16 of the complaints, there was also a further allegation of surveillance or covert activity, such as an individual being followed by police officers, or of police intrusion in their family life.
    
5. The complaints covered a long timeframe. The earliest referred to incidents around the time of the Taylor Inquiry (1989–90) and the most recent involved noises heard on telephone lines during 2015. They also referred to the alleged actions of officers from a number of forces, including Merseyside Police, SYP, WMP and the Metropolitan Police. In several cases, the complainant was not able to identify any particular officer or force involved.