There has been speculation that one reason SYP adopted this unusual approach to collecting evidence was because of its experiences in the aftermath of events at Orgreave coking plant, during the 1984/85 miners’ strike.
On 18 June 1984, Orgreave was the scene of violent confrontations between police officers and striking miners. The plant was in the SYP area, near Sheffield, so a substantial proportion of these officers were from SYP; however, officers were also drawn from other forces around the country. Following the events, 55 protesters were charged with riot. All charges were eventually withdrawn, amid questions over the validity of some of the arresting officers’ statements. It transpired that, among other issues with the statements, when officers from other forces were making statements, SYP officers gave them a standard introduction to use, which set out key locations that the visiting officers would not have known.
Between 2012 and 2015, the IPCC received two voluntary referrals from SYP in relation to allegations of police misconduct relating to Orgreave. In 2015, having reviewed the available information, the IPCC announced its decision not to investigate these allegations nor to reopen complaints about police conduct relating to Orgreave.
After this decision was announced, the IOPC Hillsborough investigation team requested access to the material that had been considered in making it. This was because of the possibility that there could be parallels between SYP’s approach to evidence gathering in both cases.
The Hillsborough investigation team appointed independent counsel to conduct a comprehensive review of the Orgreave material, to assess its relevance to the Hillsborough investigation. The review found there was no material related to Orgreave that was relevant to the Hillsborough criminal investigations or the complaint and conduct investigations being undertaken by the IOPC and Operation Resolve.
