Importance Score: 85 / 100 🟢
Hillsborough Disaster: Police Watchdog Concludes No Misconduct in Blame Against Fans
An extensive, 12-year inquiry by the police watchdog into the Hillsborough disaster has determined that no senior South Yorkshire police officers engaged in misconduct by falsely accusing Liverpool supporters of causing the tragic events.
Second Inquest Rejects Police Account
This police narrative was completely overturned in 2016 by the jury at the second inquest, which established that the behavior of Liverpool supporters did not contribute to the disaster. The tragedy occurred on 15 April 1989 during the FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough stadium.
Unlawful Killing Verdict
The inquest jury concluded that the 97 individuals who perished due to a crush on the Leppings Lane terraces were unlawfully killed. This verdict was attributed to gross negligence manslaughter by the commanding police officer, Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield.
Families’ Decades-Long Campaign for Truth and Accountability
Families of the 97 victims and survivors have persistently campaigned for truth and accountability for decades. They have consistently argued that South Yorkshire police fabricated a false account to diminish their responsibility and place blame on the victims.
IOPC Investigation Concludes Amidst “Hillsborough Law” Delays
The conclusion of the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, initiated in 2012, coincides with postponements to the government’s promised “Hillsborough law”. This proposed legislation aims to impose a duty of candour on police and public officials, a measure for which families have long advocated.
Families Express Outrage at IOPC Findings
Louise Brookes, whose brother Andrew, 26, was among the 97 fatalities, expressed outrage at the IOPC’s conclusions. She highlighted that in 2021, South Yorkshire police and West Midlands police, the latter brought in to investigate after the disaster, reached a settlement with families and survivors for malfeasance in public office. This settlement was based on claims of a police cover-up.
“It feels like a cover-up of a cover-up,” Brookes stated.
Gross Misconduct Findings Against Senior Officers
In a letter informing bereaved families of its findings, the IOPC did determine that Duckenfield and three other senior officers were responsible for gross misconduct due to failures at the semi-final. Duckenfield was also found to have committed gross misconduct for providing false information at 3:15 pm as people were dying. He falsely informed his superior officer, Assistant Chief Constable Walter Jackson, and football officials that Liverpool supporters had forcibly opened an exit gate.
Duckenfield’s Falsehood and Operational Failures
Duckenfield had, in fact, ordered the gate to be opened himself to alleviate a crush outside the Leppings Lane end turnstiles. Following an independent police investigation called Operation Resolve by the IOPC, 11 distinct instances of gross misconduct by Duckenfield were identified. These included ordering the gate’s opening and failing to safely manage the individuals who entered through it.
Duckenfield also did not order the closure of a tunnel leading to overcrowded central “pens” on the terrace. The disaster unfolded after people who entered through the exit gate proceeded into those pens instead of moving to the sides.
Other Senior Officers Found Culpable of Gross Misconduct
Jackson was deemed responsible for gross misconduct related to planning deficiencies and his response to the disaster. Former Superintendent Roger Marshall was found culpable for crowd management issues outside the Leppings Lane turnstiles and for requesting Duckenfield to open the exit gate. Gross misconduct was also attributed to former Superintendent Bernard Murray, Duckenfield’s second-in-command in the police control room.
Duckenfield was prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter following the inquest verdict but was acquitted in 2019.
No Case Against Senior Officers for Misleading Evidence, Except One
The IOPC stated in its letter that it found no basis to proceed against any senior South Yorkshire police officers investigated for potentially providing inaccurate, false, or deliberately misleading testimony, or for “irrelevant criticism of fans’ behaviour” after the disaster.
Senior officers were also exonerated regarding instructions given to officers not to record their accounts of the day in official police notebooks, and a subsequent process of altering officers’ accounts. However, one officer, former Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster, was found responsible for gross misconduct after an investigation into whether senior officers exerted “improper pressure” on some officers who declined to amend their original statements.
Misconduct Findings Against Lower-Ranking Officers
A complaint was upheld against one officer on duty in the control box, former Police Constable Trevor Bichard. He was found to have removed a log entry from the evidence provided to the 1989 inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor. This entry recorded that at 2:55 pm, an officer had requested the tunnel leading to the central pens be closed. Mervyn Jones, then Assistant Chief Constable of West Midlands police, was also found responsible for gross misconduct for directing the deletion of “policy files” and retaining policy books “in his personal possession” after retirement.
No Misconduct Proceedings Due to Retirements
No officers will face misconduct proceedings, the IOPC previously stated, as all have retired. The findings against officers, which include numerous additional individual complaints presently being communicated to families, represent the IOPC’s assessments.
IOPC: No Evidence to Support Police Blame on Supporters
The IOPC clarified its findings: “Like the [2012] Hillsborough Independent Panel report and the inquests, we found no evidence to support police accounts to the media, the Taylor inquiry, and both sets of inquests, which suggested that the behaviour of supporters caused or in any way contributed to the disaster.”
Police “Entitled” to Present “Best Case” Without Duty of Candour
However, in a letter to families last month, the watchdog indicated that while South Yorkshire police did attempt to “shift blame away from themselves,” in the absence of a required duty of candour at the time, the force “was within its legal rights then to present its ‘best case’ and be selective with the evidence it presented”.
“Hillsborough Law” Deadline Missed
Keir Starmer pledged at Labour’s conference in Liverpool in September to introduce the Hillsborough law by this month’s 36th anniversary of the disaster, but this deadline will not be met. Families have argued that the current proposals do not provide the necessary duty of candour. Starmer postponed a visit to Liverpool last week where he was scheduled to announce the new law to families.
Families Express Disappointment at “Hillsborough Law” Delay
Charlotte Hennessy, who was six when her father, Jimmy, 29, was unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, voiced her “frustration and deep disappointment” upon learning of the delay.
“In my opinion, the prime minister has exploited the deaths of the 97, their anniversary, and the Hillsborough law to gain votes,” she asserted.
“There just seems to be this recurring pattern where he makes promises and then retracts them. And to do that in relation to a Hillsborough anniversary – I’m appalled by it.”
Labour Still Committed to Hillsborough Law
Starmer’s spokesperson stated: “We remain fully committed to enacting a Hillsborough law which will include a legal duty of candour for public servants and criminal penalties for those who refuse to comply. We are progressing with the bill rapidly and will outline the next steps shortly.”