Evidence that SYP continued to try to deflect blame after the Taylor Interim Report was published
Despite these findings, SYP continued to advance a similar case in the period from the publication of the Taylor Interim Report up to the end of the Popper Inquests.
SYP arranged two events where MPs were shown a video about the disaster, compiled by Ch Insp Bettison and colleagues. At the first of these, attended by a single MP, individual officers were encouraged to share their experiences and recollections, so that the MP present could later “speak up” for the police (see paragraphs 8.21–8.32). Most of the officers at this first meeting then gave graphic accounts of supporters being under the influence of alcohol; in several cases, these included details that had not been in their original written accounts. The second meeting involved Ch Insp Bettison presenting the same video to an audience of MPs at Parliament; the MPs who recall it have all agreed it was an unpersuasive attempt to position SYP’s side of the story.
On the advice of legal representatives, the SYP action team invited some officers to “review” aspects of the evidence that they had given to the Taylor Inquiry, which contradicted or undermined SYP’s preferred account of events. In particular, this request focused on evidence given about police responsibility for monitoring the pens and past actions to close the tunnel (see paragraphs 11.37–11.42).
In preparation for the Popper Inquests, SYP sought to identify witnesses whose accounts discussed supporters’ alcohol consumption, so that it could ask, via its legal team, for them to be called to give evidence (see paragraphs 11.55–11.62).
On legal advice from Mr Metcalf, SYP adopted a “strategy” for the Popper Inquests which sought “to bring out the issue of drink-related hooliganism” (see paragraph 11.63).
Senior officers also repeatedly made clear to their legal team that at the contribution hearings they wished to challenge the Taylor Inquiry finding that SYP had accepted “de facto” responsibility for monitoring the safety of supporters in the pens. While this was consistent with the case they had sought to put to the Taylor Inquiry, doing so was against the advice of SYP’s appointed barrister (see paragraphs 11.17–11.23 and 11.45–11.46). This therefore undermines the argument, made by several of these senior officers at different times, that they were simply following legal advice.
Further, in interactions with the media right up to his retirement, CC Wright continued to indicate that he believed alcohol was a factor in the disaster and that more evidence would still emerge.
