Hillsborough Investigation Comes Up Short – Again

Some of the verdicts are at odds with the South Yorkshire Police's treatment of civil claims related to the unlawful deaths of 97 people in 1989 and the force's behaviour afterwards

The Independent Office for Police (IOPC) has spent 13 years investigating the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath and interested parties – families and survivors – have been sent a document detailing the conclusions.

Hillsborough campaigners are disappointed that the IOPC determined that there was no cover-up in the aftermath of the crush that caused the unlawful killing of 97 supporters at the Leppings Lane end before and during the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on April 15, 1989. Norman Bettison, a chief inspector of the South Yorkshire Police (SYP) in 1989, was named in Parliament as heading a ‘black propaganda’ unit, whose role was to place the blame on supporters rather than the authorities.

The IOPC’s verdict is at odds with the conduct of the SYP over the past decade. The force has accepted 600 misfeasance claims related to the behaviour of its officers in relation to the cover-up, spending millions of pounds in compensation.

The lies about where the fault lay for the catastrophic series of events at Hillsborough were spread at the highest levels of government and to the media. The Sun’s ‘The Truth’ headline, followed by a story which alleged that supporters stole from the dead and attacked police who were trying to help the dying and injured, caused immense distress among bereaved relatives and survivors.

David Duckenfield, the match commander, comes into serious criticism, which was expected. The chaos of the SYP’s attempt to maintain safety at the ground is laid bare. The widespread gross misconduct illustrates how the police lost control of the situation, leading to the loss of innocent life.

A number of officers who changed the statements of their subordinates have been found to have no case to answer, despite admitting to the amendments, which presented the SYP in a more sympathetic light. This is largely due to a quirk in the law. Information presented to the original inquiries was not given under oath, which freed these individuals to mislead.

The Hillsborough Law, which is expected to go before Parliament in the near future, should close this loophole by creating a duty of candour for public officials – effectively criminalising those who lie about their behaviour.

One officer who was rebuked by the IOPC is Mervyn Jones, the assistant chief constable who led the West Midlands Police’s investigation into Hillsborough. Jones was deemed to have committed three counts of gross misconduct for deleting policy files, keeping information relating to Hillsborough in his personal possession after retiring and failing to notify a 1997 re-examination of the Taylor report of these facts.

The complainants, family members and survivors, have a right to contest the findings. Even where gross misconduct is ruled to have taken place, the worst that the individuals involved can expect is reputational damage. There will be no legal consequences for anyone involved.

The only successful prosecution for the unlawful killing of 97 people occurred when Graham Mackrell, the Sheffield Wednesday secretary, was convicted of a health and safety offence. He was fined £6,500. All four policemen and a force solicitor who were charged with offences related to Hillsborough walked free from court.