complaints and discipline file - hillsborough...
TRANSCRIPT
- V Sheffield Archives Ref: ^ / 3
u n i t y j
WEST MIDLAND POLICE
Assistant Chief Constable Walter JACKSON
COMPLAINTS and DISCIPLINE FILE
WP 665 (S.O. B16) (1.86)
West Midlands Police
COMPLAINT AGAINST POLICE
Enquiry Summary
R«f. No.
1/89Date
27 July 1990
NAME & ADDRESS OF
COMPLAINANT(S)
Mr Trevor HICKS • FORMAL INVESTIGATION
• INFORMAL INVESTIGATION
NATURE OF COMPLAINT
(1) That he failed to take control of the disaster.
(2) That he may have colluded with Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELDto mislead the public and senior police officers in respectof the opening of Gate C in Leppings Lane.
BRIEF DETAILS OF EVENTS LEADING TO COMPLAINT
On 15 April 1989, a disaster occurred at the F/A Cup Semi-Final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forrest held at Hillsborough Football stadium, Sheffield which resulted in death and injuries to a large number of the Liverpool supporters. The Complaints set out in this file emanate from events preceding, during and immediately following that disaster.
OFFICERS SUBJECT TO COMPLAINT
(Rank, Number and Name)
Assistant Chief Constable Walter JACKSON South Yorkshire Police
INVESTIGATING OFFICER ____
Nama
CHIEF CONSTABLE MR L SHARPstMion POLICE HQ
CUMBRIA
Phone
BRIEF DETAILS OFINVESTIGATION
These complaints have been supervised by Captain E N TAYLOR of the Police Complaints Authority. Following extensive enquiries and research and analysis of the data base for the Hillsborough disaster Assistant Chief Constable Mr JACKSON was interviewed and he denied the allegations.
Files in respect of the criminal culpability of Assistant Chief Constable Mr JACKSON (and other officers) in respect of these complaints are currently with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority.
INVESTIGATION SUPERVISED BY POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTH O R ITY-
Section 89(1) PACE Act 1984 Section 89(2) PACE Act 1984
YES/NO?*5£S/NO*
. /
FOR COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE USE ONLY
Under provision of:REFERRED TOMANDATORY REFERRALSection 87(1 )(a)(l) PACE Act 1984
MANDATORY REFERRALSection 8 7 (t) (a ) ( ll) PACE Act 1984POLICECOMPLAINTSAUTHORITY
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
ACTION TAKEN
Section 87(1 Mb) PACE Act 1984 DISCRETIONARY REFERRAL
Section 87(2) PACE Act 1984 A T REQUEST OF PCA
Appropriate certificate issued by P.C.A.
Section 90/91 * PACE Act 1984Informing P.C.A ai conclusion of enquiry
Reg. II The Police (Complaints) (General) Regulations 1985 (Complaints which are w ithdrawn)Reg. 3 The Police (Anonymous, Repetitous etc. Complaints) Regulations 1985 (Complaints which are anonymous, repetitous or incapable of investigation)_______________ — ---------------- —
Section 90(4) PACE Act 1984
Confirmed
Proceedings recommended
Complainant(s) informed
YES/NO
YES/NO *
Officer(s) informed: Y E S /N O ’
Officer(s) advised YES/NO
Officer(s) disciplined: YES/NO
Any other comments (i.e. Complainants dissatisfied, civil proceedings, compensation paid, etc.)
Assistant Chief Constable Date: 1. Chief Constable to see.
2. Chief Superintendent Division.File result in Div, Complaints Book unless any complaints to make
3. File
STATISTICS SECTION
B R E A K D O W N OF C O M P LA IN T S | C A T EGOR>( OF C<DMPLA IN T |
1
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 2 3 4 5 6 7
C A
8
T E G O R Y O F C O M P l a i rSIT
i1
.— i31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
20 21 22 23 | 24 20 | 20
C A T E G
27
O R Y O F <: O M P L A 1 VI T D.F'.P.
I
52 53 54 55 56 5739 40
D.F
41
>.P.
42 43 44 45 | 4b
P
47
O L 1C
48 49
E C O M P L A 1 N 1r s a U T H C R 1 T Y
----j
70 71 72 73 74 75 7658 59
P.C
60
.A.
61 62 I 63 64
SI
65 [ 66
JB S TA N TIA TI
D / ; oo
ED DISC IPLINA R Y PR OCEED INGS
I
88 89 90 91 92 as 9477 78 79 8U 81 | oJ 84 ob
»•' Delete as applicable e.
FOREWORD
This report is submitted in the normal and accepted
complaint format. However, some explanation is
required to assist the reader in identifying where to
find certain statements and documents.
In the margin of the repbrt it will be seen that
Document numbers, Statement pages, Appendices and on
occasions Lord Justice Taylor’s interim and final
report are referred to as well as to extracts from the
transcripts of his Public Inquiry.
Where a document number or statement is prefixed with a
part number this can be found within the seven volumes
(parts) of evidence submitted to the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
eg: PART IV or
Document No 6
Pages 44-52
If a document number or statement is not prefixed with
a part number that particular item can be found within
this file.
Where reference is made to a video then each VHS tape
has been given a separate, Part III, document number.
Not only that but within the same Part III is a written
description/schedule of what the video contains. For
example;
4
PART IV
Statement
Pages 2331-2356
Part III (Documents)
Document No 115
(Video)
Pages 757
identifies the VHS tape number as 115 and the schedule
page in the documents where the description can be
found.
A similar system is used to identify photographs which
also feature in Part III. For example;
Part III (Documents)
Document No 150
Photo No 14
This easily identifies that this photograph can be
found in the Album marked Document Number 150 and
within each album the photographs are numbered
consecutively.
A reference to one of Lord Justice Taylor’s reports
will be shown as follows;
LJT (interim) or (final)
Page
Paragraph
A reference to a transcript from the Public Inquiry
will be shown as follows;
e.g.
Transcript 26.5.89
Day 9
Pages 74-75
L SHARP QPM, LLB
CHIEF CONSTABLE
CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY
5
CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING COMPLAINTS
R1 On 15 April 1989 a Football Association Cup Semi
Final match was played between Liverpool and Nottingham
Forest Football Clubs at the neutral Sheffield
Wednesday ground at Hillsborough. It is well
documented that shortly after ’kick-off’ the match was
abandoned due to crushing in pens 3 and 4 of the
Leppings Lane/West Stand terraces, which resulted in
the death of 95 Liverpool Supporters and injuries to
many others.
R2 As a result of the tragedy Mr 6 J DEAR, QPM,
Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police was
appointed to investigate the disaster and to collate
evidence for H M Coroner and for a Judicial Inquiry
which was carried out by Lord Justice TAYLOR. On 27
September 1989 following submission of the TAYLOR
Interim Report into the disaster to the Director of
Public Prosecutions Mr DEAR agreed to accept additional
responsibility for the criminal and disciplinary
aspects of the investigation. On 1 April 1990, with
the retirement of Mr DEAR, these responsibilities were
transferred to Mr L SHARP, QPM, LLB, Chief Constable of
Cumbria.
R3 Because the deaths and injuries occurred at the
Leppings Lane end of Hillsborough Stadium, this report
concentrates on the Liverpool supporters and the events
which surrounded them on the day of the disaster.
«
Part IV
Documents 183 &
Statement Pages
1152-1154
Part IV
Statement Paces
1145-1151
Part IV
Document 185
Page 929
Part IV
Document 186
Pages 930-931
R4 Because of the Liverpool Football Club’s success
184 Over a long period of time it has a large following by
fans. Their behaviour is well documented by police.
Among other details, a tendency to arrive late and
without tickets is noted.
R5 Police Sergeant George CHARLESWORTH collated the
pre-match intelligence by liaising with both Merseyside
Police and Nottinghamshire Constabulary and presented
the information in report form at the pre-match
briefing.
R6 Once Hillsborough had been selected as the venue
for the semi-final in 1989, an undated letter was
circulated by Walter JACKSON, Assistant Chief Constable
(Operations), South Yorkshire Police, in which he
details recommended routes to Sheffield, parking
arrangements, search procedures and opening times for
the ground. The letter asked supporters to arrive
between 1030 hours and 1400 hours to ensure they were
in the ground for the start of the match at 1500 hours,
and indicated that ticketless fans should not attend.
R7 The Liverpool Football Club’s programme for the
home game at Anfield on 8 April 1989 contained an
article in the same vein and this was repeated in media
broadcasts and publications, both locally and
nationally.
7
Part IV
Statement Pages
1155-1161
R8 Some 102 coaches containing Liverpool supporters
travelled to Sheffield on 15 April 1989. Most of these
were accompanied by a Liverpool steward and either
they, or the drivers were advised prior to departure
about the arrangements in South Yorkshire. Additional
arrangements were made by Merseyside Police.
Part IV
Documents 187-188
Pages 932-938
939-962
R9 The largest proportion of supporters travelled in
private or hire cars, vans and mini-buses. It is
impossible to quantify these vehicles numerically but
there were no significant traffic delays to cause late
arrival of fans in Sheffield. This matter is
considered again later in this report. A detailed
report from British Transport Police confirms that one
special train and three service trains from Liverpool
conveyed 825 supporters to Sheffield, and other trains
from other areas brought the total to 1,337.
RIO By comparison, 1,932 Nottingham Forest supporters
travelled by a combination of special and service
trains to attend the match. The conclusion was that
the supporters were happy and good natured with few
signs of intoxication.
Part IV
Statement Pages Rll There is evidence of Liverpool and other
1208-1211 supporters procuring and consuming alcohol en route to
1212-1214 the game.
R12 Despite the entreaties for fans to arrive early
(previously referred to) some of the gates into
Part IV Hillsborough Stadium were not opened until 1130 hours
Statement Pages and some even later than that. Fans were already in
1241-1243 Sheffield and drinking alcohol by 0845 hours.
Part IV
Statement Pages
1237-1240
1246-1247
Statement Pages
1293-1294
Statement Pages
1244-1245
Statement Pages
1295-1298
R13 There are many descriptions of the behaviour of
supporters in various parts of Sheffield but
predominantly in the area within two miles or so from
the ground between 0845 hours and 1500 hours. They
present a picture of drinking, boisterous and rowdy
behaviour, some drunkeness and urinating in public and
secluded places. But not all of the statements are
critical, some praise the behaviour of Liverpool
supporters. At one location seven dustbin liners were
collected full of cans, bottles and other alcoholic
drink containers, and that was on one garage
forecourt. One public house sold out of beer.
R14 As part of the policing arrangements on 15 April
1989 many of the public houses within one mile radius
of the stadium were closed for the sale of alcohol.
Those licensed premises which did open instigated
various controls on the door but the further away from
the stadium the premises are situated, the more
attractive they were to supporters wishing to drink.
The further away from the stadium the premises are
situated, the more likely was a late arrival at the
Part IV
Statement
1291-1292
1325-1329
1330-1334
Part IV
stadium. This may have put more customer pressure on
other retail outlets where alcohol Is sold and police
Pages control is more difficult. Most of the supermarkets
and off-licenses did open and they sold a considerable
amount of drink on the day. Public houses and
off-sales describe the significant increases in
their takings on 15 April 1989. The pattern of this
evidence is that whilst sales increased considerably,
in general the behaviour of the supporters was good
although there were incidents of very bad behaviour.
R15 This bad behaviour was perhaps naturally more
acute nearest to the stadium. People living near to
any football stadium are well accustomed, some would
say long-suffering, to the disruption which occurs in
their neighbourhood when a football match takes place.
By reason of their experience the local residents
develop the ability to identify those teams whose
supporters cause them the most trouble. Given the
dangers of bias, prejudice and stereotyping, as a
result some supporters are attributed with a group
reputation, but the local residents are in a position
to compare and balance the behaviour of various
supporters week by week, and even year by year.
R16 On the day in question a picture emerges of cars
being parked early, those roads nearest to the stadium
at the Leppings Lane end (the Liverpool end) being full
Statement Pages of parked cars by 1100 hours. A considerable amount of
1345-1349 alcohol was seen being carried and consumed. Fans were
1353-1358
1359-1364
1429-1432
Part IV
Statement
1208-1211
1212-1214
1415-1423
1424-1428
seen walking towards the stadium with little or no
chance of being there for the start of the game. There
is some evidence that on 15 April 1989 at the Leppings
Lane turnstiles the behaviour of the fans was the worst
ever seen. Through the eyes of the local residents the
Liverpool supporters were generally more badly behaved
in 1989 than they were on the occasion of the
semi-final in 1988; the bad behaviour was influenced by
alcohol; and too many fans arrived late.
R17 But from the evidence of witnesses it is not at
all clear that the only cause for the fans late arrival
at the Leppings Lane turnstiles was drink-related. The
day of the match was warm and sunny with a temperature
of 12 degrees Celsius or 53.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Many
of the supporters attending the match were intent upon
enjoying a traditional pre match drink. In some cases
the alcohol led to rowdy, boisterous or disorderly
behaviour, in others it led to a reluctance to leave
licensed premises until the last minute. However,
Pages although traffic volume was heavy on all approach
routes and traffic delays were not a serious problem.
some traffic hold-ups did occur to cause late arrival
at the ground. The police search operation inevitably
caused some delay to some supporters, for example the
search of one private mini-bus took twenty minutes to
complete, the occupants arriving at the ground at 1455
hours. On balance it is likely that one cause of late
arrivals at the Leppings Lane turnstiles was
Part III drink-related. The build-up started at about 1420
Document 109 hours and continued until Gate C was opened at 1452
Schedule Pages 740-741 hours.
Part IV
Document 191
Pages 991-997
Statement Pages
2433-2456
Document 1
Page 1
R18 The evidence suggests that very many of the fans
who arrived at the ground after 1430 hours, had been
drinking at public houses or from containers brought
from home or bought from off-licenses and other retail
outlets. But there is little evidence of arrestable
drunkenness and there is no evidence of wide-scale
prosecutable drunkenness. There was certainly an
element in the crowd outside the Leppings Lane
turnstile who were the worse for drink but the evidence
suggests that element was in a minority. That element
contained young people influenced by drink who were
pushing shoving and weaving about among the crowd
either through impatience or bravado and there seems
little doubt that those arriving at Leppings Lane at a
time nearest to the kick-off had drunk the most and
were the worst behaved. This "late arrival element"
would have been most likely to be among those who
entered the ground through Gate C at 1452 hours and
made their way to the back of pens 3 and 4. Of the
95 who died in pens 3 and 4 it can be shown that 23
entered through Gate C after 1452 hours and of these
some had significantly high blood/alcohol levels, but
to deduce more than that from the evidence available
would be no more than speculation.
1 9
R19 A not unrelated difficulty was caused by fans
arriving without tickets despite the all-ticket nature
of the match and the entreaties previously mentioned.
Part IV
Document 183
Pages 910-922
Part II
Statement Pages
1152-1154
Part IV
Document 184
Pages 923-928
Part IV
Document 189
Pages 963-986
R20 Evidence from the supporters themselves suggests
that a considerable number of people travelled without
tickets in the hope of purchasing them at or near to
the stadium. The police evidence suggests large
numbers of ticketless fans. An estimate calculated
from the statements suggests something in the region of
2.000 fans arriving at Hillsborough without
tickets.
R21 From the turnstile count print-out it is possible
to calculate the number of fans outside Leppings Lane
turnstiles just before the opening of Gate C at 1452
hours. The estimate is 3,264 still waiting to enter
the ground. Add to that the estimated 2,000 non-ticket
holders and there is a potential crowd of 5,246 still
to come into the stadium just before the opening of
Gate C.
R22 The calculation as to the number of ticketless
fans who entered the stadium at the Leppings Lane end
is open to dispute. There is a considerable amount of
evidence which suggests that there were frequent
requests and negotiations for tickets during the time
that the crowd build up outside Leppings Lane
turnstile. The police officers intervened on many
occasions in the interests of preventing obstruction
and to detect forged tickets. Many of the supporters
moved on in this fashion, returned, predominantly to
the bridge area over the River Don. From the CCTV
video evidence there was a large number of fans
loitering in the area outside of Gate C making no
attempt to enter though the turnstiles. That may have
been because they were waiting for the crush to clear
before presenting their tickets at the turnstile, but
it may have been the case that they had no tickets to
present and were waiting the opportunity to buy a
ticket or enter the ground "illegally."
R23 It has been suggested that as the kick off time
approached, the West Terraces and the North Stand still
had many spaces in pens 1 and 2, 6 and 7 and the North
Stand seats, the Liverpool supporters accommodation.
Because the match was "all-ticket" and a "sell out"
these spaces must indicate that there were many ticket
holders still to come into the stadium and that would
account for the large crowd still outside the Leppings
Lane turnstiles. If those spaces had been filled by
about 1420 hours it would have indicated that the large
crowd outside the turnstiles had no tickets, but these
spaces were still empty at that time.
R24 In an attempt to resolve the matter account has
been taken of the Club’s electronic monitoring system.
This shows that a total of 7,038 people passed through
turnstiles A-G, the entrance to the West Terraces.
However, the counting mechanism on turnstile G was
defective. The Health and Safety Executive from a
study of the CCTV film which portrays turnstiles A-G
and Gate C, estimated that as many as 7,644 people
entered through turnstiles A-G but that estimate is
based upon not only a "head-count" of the video film
but also a projection of figures from other
turnstiles. Again using the video film, the Health and
Safety Executive estimated that as many as 2,480 people
entered the ground through exit Gate C. The best
estimate available from the Health and Safety Executive
is that 10,124 people entered through turnstiles A-G
and Gate C. However, this estimate does not take into
account those people with tickets for the West Terraces
who were allowed through turnstiles 1-16, and other
factors such as the opening of Gate A, which distort
the figures. Bearing in mind that 10,100 tickets were
sold for the West Terraces, the evidence, such as it
is, does suggest that non-ticket holders entering the
West Terraces (the Liverpool end) could have been as
high as 2,000 or as low as 200. It is impossible to be
more precise.
Part IVStatement Pages1559-15661567-15751576-15791580-15861587-1590
Statement Pages1664-16701671-1673
R25 There are many descriptions of the activities of
ticketless fans and ticket touts on the day, but there
is no evidence of any conspiracy by Liverpool
supporters, or groups of supporters, to descend on the
turnstiles in Leppings Lane to force, or otherwise gain
entry illegally.
Part IV R26 Trevor HICKS was the father of Sara Louise HICKS
Statement Pages (19 years - deceased) and Victoria Jane HICKS (15 years
2331-2356 - deceased) and attended the match with his wife
Jennifer HICKS and the two daughters. Whilst he went
and stood in pens 1/2 and his wife went to a seat in
the North Stand, both girls went into pen 3. Mr HICKS
makes two complaints which relate to Assistant Chief
Constable Mr JACKSON, concerning failure to control the
disaster and collusion with Chief Superintendent
DUCKENFIELD to tell lies in relation to the opening of
exit Gate C into the ground.
DETAILS OF COMPLAINTS
R27 The first complaint by Mr HICKS was made on 24
August 1989 in a formal statement to Mr Kenneth Philip
Douglas COOPER, Assistant Chief Constable,
Northamptonshire Constabulary, when he saw Mr HICKS in
relation to an earlier complaint against Chief
Superintendent David Godfrey DUCKENFIELD. Mr COOPER
was appointed to investigate that complaint by
Document 2 letter dated 25 July 1989, under the supervision of
Page 2 Captain E N TAYLOR from the Police Complaints Authority
Document 3 who ratified that appointment and informed Mr HICKS by
Page 3 letter dated 4 August 1989. Details of the complaint
are as follows:-
a) That you failed to take control of the disaster.
R28 Subsequent to this interview Mr COOPER received a
letter dated 5 September 1989 from Captain TAYLOR
informing him that the enquiry would be dealt with by
another force. On 27 September following protracted
negotiations, responsibility for all criminal and
disciplinary aspects of the investigation into the
Hillsborough disaster, including the complaints by Mr
HICKS, were passed to Mr DEAR for enquiries by West
Midlands Police.
R29 Arising from that transfer of responsibility, Mr
HICKS was re-interviewed on 22 November 1989 by
Detective Superintendent TAYLOR with a view to
clarification of the complaint against Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD. He then made a second
complaint against Assistant Chief Constable Mr JACKSON
as follows:-
b) That he may have colluded with Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD to mislead the public
and senior police officers in respect of the
opening of Gate C in Leppings Lane.
Documents 5-6 R30 Correspondence relating to the acceptance of this
Pages 5-6 investigation by Mr DEAR and supervision of the
investigation by Captain TAYLOR is included in the
file.
Document 4
Page 4
17
R31 These complaints raise allegations of both
criminal and disciplinary offences. Files on the
criminal aspect of the investigation are already with
the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police
Complaints Authority. This report deals solely with
the disciplinary aspects.
DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION
R32 That he failed to take control of the disaster.
R33 This complaint is made only by Mr HICKS and he
explains it by a description of the events on the day
as seen through his eyes, and from a consideration of
the evidence heard by Lord Justice TAYLOR at the Public
Inquiry, which leads him to conclude that Mr JACKSON
neglected to discharge his duties relating to the
staging of the semi-final at Hillsborough on 15 April
1989.
R34 The disciplinary offence which has to be
considered iss-
Neglect of Duty.
Being a member of a police force without good and
sufficient cause neglected or omitted to attend to or
carry out with due promptitude and diligence anything
which it is his duty as a member of a police force to
18
Part IV
Statement Pages
2331-2356
attend to or carry out, viz he failed to take control
of the disaster at Hillsborough stadium on 15 April
1989.
Contrary to the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985
Schedule 1 Regulation 4(i) paragraph 4(a).
R35 The evidence to support such a disciplinary
charge is the same as is currently being considered by
the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of Mr
JACKSON’S culpability for Manslaughter or Culpable
Malfeasance. The offence of Manslaughter requires
proof of a high level of gross negligence or
recklessness, but the offence of Culpable Malfeasance
requires proof only of neglect of a duty. Should the
Director decide that there is insufficient evidence to
prosecute for those criminal offences then the same
must be said in respect of the disciplinary offence of
Neglect of Duty.
R36 In that case this complaint is unsubstantiated.
Part V R37 That he may have colluded with Chief
Statement Pages Superintendent DUCKENFIELD to mislead the public and
2457-2469 senior police officers in respect of the opening of
Gate C in Leppings Lane.
Part IV
Statement Pages R38 This complaint is made only by Mr HICKS and he
2331-2356 explains it by saying that he doubts whether Mr JACKSON
was unaware that Gate C had been opened by police at
1452 hours because he can see no reason why Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD would not have told him that
this had occurred.
R39 The disciplinary offence which has to be
considered is:-
Falsehood or Prevarication.
Being a member of a police force knowingly colluded
with Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD on 15 April 1989
to make a false, misleading or inaccurate oral
statement that Gate C at Hillsborough stadium had been
forced open by football supporters at 1452 hours on 15
April 1989, whereas the gate had in fact been opened on
the instructions of Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD.
Contrary to the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985.
Schedule 1. Regulation 4(i). paragraph 5(a).
R40 Although the evidence to support this
disciplinary charge forms a part of the evidence
submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions to
consider the culpability of Mr JACKSON for the criminal
offences of Manslaughter or Culpable Malfeasance,
should the Director decide that there is insufficient
evidence to prosecute these criminal offences, it would
still be possible to prosecute the disciplinary charge
of Falsehood or Prevarication.
Part II
Statement Pages
860-869
Part V
Document 192
Pages 998-1044
Part V
Document 194
Pages 1128-1210
Document 206
Pages 1352-1444
Document 205
Pages 1315-1351
Part II
Statement Pages
R41 On 15 April 1989, and before, Mr JACKSON was the
Assistant Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
with specific responsibilities for Operations,
including the policing of football matches at
Hillsborough. He had produced the South Yorkshire
Police Standing Instructions for the Policing of
football Matches amended in the light of the Popplewell
recommendations, he gave final approval for the
Divisional Operation Orders for policing football
matches at Hillsborough and he was custodian of the
South Yorkshire Police Major Incident Plan and
Operation Support Plan. It was he that decided that
Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD, newly promoted, would
be in operational charge of the policing of
Hillsborough Stadium and its environs, on 15 April
1989.
R42 On that date he was on duty and "on call" in the
sense that he was the nominated Chief Officer for the
force available to deal with any matter which required
the personal attention of a Chief Officer. He was in
plain clothes and after some routine duties to satisfy
himself that the plan for policing the semi-final
football match was progressing satisfactorily he went
to the Police Control Box at Hillsborough and briefly
spoke to Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD. The time
was shortly after 1400 hours and the only occurrence of
note at that time was his remark while in the Control
Box that the Liverpool fans seemed to be slow in
entering the West Terraces at the Leppings Lane end by
comparison with the Nottingham Forest supporters in the
Spion Kop.
Part II
Statement Pages
860-869
R43 Mr JACKSON took his seat in the South Stand near
to a point over the players’ tunnel and saw nothing
untoward until after the match had started and fans
were coming onto the perimeter track through the
perimeter fence at the front of the West Terraces. The
match was still in progress and he left his seat
promptly and went to the Police Control Box, arriving
at about 1507 hours, the match having been stopped by
then.
Part V
Statement Pages
2457-2469
R44 He was in the Control Box for a very short time,
just long enough to enquire of Chief Superintendent
DUCKENFIELD as to what was happening. The response was
inconclusive and seemed to suggest that some sort of
pitch invasion was occurring, so he went onto the pitch
to find out for himself.
Part V
Statement Pages
2515-2526
R45 Here he spoke to Superintendent GREENWOOD and
learned of the injuries and fatalities so he returned
to the Control Box to ensure that ambulances and
resources (Operation Support) had been sent for.
Part VII
Appendix C
Page 1297
R46 He acknowledges that at that moment he was in
overall command of the incident and began to imnlement
the Major Incident Plan. At that time he was aware
that crushing had occurred due to overcrowding but was
unaware that Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD had
approved the opening of Gate C or any other gates.
Part II
Statement Pages
819-829
Statement Pages 829A-J
Part I
Statement Pages 36-59
Part II
Statement Pages
860-869
Part V
Statement Pages
R47 At about 1515 hours he was present in the Police
Control Box, which was extremely busy, when Mr Graham
KELLY and Mr Glen KIRTON of the Football Association
2457-2469
to Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.
R48 They spoke to Mr JACKSON and to Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD and although he was engaged
with other matters, Mr JACKSON believes that it was on
this occasion that Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD
told Mr KELLY that Liverpool supporters had forced open
C gate and had flooded into the ground.
R49 There is no evidence at all that Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD told any of the visitors to
the Control Box that police had opened Gate C, or any
other gates, on his express approval.
Part VII
Appendix C
Page 1320
R50 At 1530 hours Mr JACKSON was present in the Board
Room when Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD explained
his reasons for not wanting the decision to abandon the
match, to be made public knowledge. Mr JACKSON
explains that when he entered the Boardroom he believed
that fans had broken down a gate and had forced entry
into the ground, he was not aware that Chief
Superintendent DUCKENFIELD had authorised the opening
23
Part V
Statement Pages
2527-2547
Part VII
Appendix C
Pages 1348-1349
Part I
Statement Pages
598-616
of any exit gates; and that was still his belief when
he left the Boardroom.
R51 On return to the Police Control Box he continued
to implement the Major Incident Plan and at about 1545
hours, when the injured and dead were being safely
dealt with, he called his ground Commanders to him,
including Superintendent MARSHALL. While Mr JACKSON
was debriefing them, the then Chief Constable, Mr Peter
WRIGHT, made contact by telephone, to find out what had
been going on. As Mr JACKSON was speaking to Mr
WRIGHT, Superintendent MARSHALL explained how Gate C
had been opened at his request. The time at that
moment was about 1615 hours although it could have been
as early as 1600 hours, and that was the first
occasion, so he claims, that Mr JACKSON was aware of
the true circumstances surrounding the opening of Gate
C at 1452 hours.
R52 Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD has refused to
answer any questions about this or any other matter,
but the following matters of evidence are significant.
R53 Mr MACKRELL was on the pitch as the Liverpool
team came out of the playing tunnel at 1454 hours. At
about that moment he was approached by Mr Douglas John
LOCK, the Club Security Officer, who told him that Gate
C had either been opened or broken down, it is not
certain which, and between 300 and 400 fans had got
into the ground through the gate. Mr LOCK had learned
this from the Club Control Room where there is
a facility for monitoring the CCTV cameras. It is
clear that this reference by Mr LOCK was in respect of
the opening of Gate C at 1448 hours to eject a
non-ticket holder and about 150 fans forced their way
into the ground, because at about 1450 hours Mr LOCK
Part V gave the same account to Inspector Trevor HARVEY. But.
Statement PsRes of course, that was unknown to Mr MACKRELL at that
3311A-J time.
Part I R54 Mr MACKRELL went to investigate, stonning to talk
Statement ..p.a&es to one or two people about the arrangements for the
36-59 game, and when he reached Gate C he found it slightly
open with a trickle of fans coming through it under the
control of a mounted officer. By the time Mr MACKRELL
would have got to Gate C, he would be witnessing the
Part V tail-end of the otiening authorised by Chief
Statement Pages Superintendent DUCKENFIELD at 1452 hours. He would not
2457-2469 know that the opening of Gate C he was witnessing was
not the same opening reported to him by Mr LOCK. If Mr
LOCK had referred to the breaking down of a gate, and
that is not clear, then the seeds were sown in Mr
MACKRELL’S mind that Gate C had been broken down.
Part I R55 This is important only because Mr MACKRELL wasStatement Pages 36-59Part II present with Mr KELLY and Mr KIRTON when they visitedStatement Pages819-829 the Police Control Box at 1515 hours and were allegedly829A-J
misinformed about the opening of Gate C. It was Mr
Lord Justice Taylor’s
Public Inquiry
21 June 1989
Page 33-103
Part II
Statement Pages
860-869
Lord Justice Taylor’s
Public Inquiry
21 June 1989
Pages 33-103
MACKRELL who actually took Mr KELLY and Mr KIRTON to
the Police Control Box at about 1515 hours and despite
his own quick visit to the Control Box prior to that,
nothing had been said to change what Mr LOCK had told
him. It is likely that it was that version of events
which Mr MACKRELL would have passed on to Mr KELLY on
their way to the Police Control Box.
R56 In giving his unsworn testimony to Lord Justice
TAYLOR at the public inquiry. Mr KELLY was not sure
whether he had spoken to Mr MACKRELL about the opening
of the gates before he went to the Police Control Box
at about 1515 hours.
R57 Because Mr MACKRELL was engaged in conversation
in the Control Box he cannot help as to what Mr KELLY
was told there, but Mr KELLY claims he was told by
police, he believes by Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD
that a gate or gates had been forced and he was
referred by an officer to a picture being transmitted
on a TV monitor from a CCTV camera which was pointed at
the Leppings Lane turnstiles and Gate C. Whilst he is
sure that Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD and Mr
JACKSON were in the Police Control Box at that time,
and he remembers being told that when the gates were
forced there had been an influx of Liverpool
supporters, he cannot be sure Mr JACKSON heard what
transpired.
Part II
Statement Pages
869A-J
Lord Justice Taylor’s
Public Inquiry
22 June 1989
Pages 48-75
Part II
Statement Pages
819-829
Lord Justice TAYLOR’S
Public Inquiry
21 May 1989
Pages 33-103
R58 Mr KIRTON. who gave evidence to the Lord Justice
TAYLOR Public Inquiry, remembers going with Mr KELLY
and Mr MACKRELL to the Police Control Box at about 1515
hours, and speaking to Chief Superintendent
DUCKENFIELD. He has no doubt that it was Mr
DUCKENFIELD who told them that the cause of the
injuries had been the forcing of a gate and an inrush
of Liverpool supporters. He remembers the reference to
a CCTV monitor which was showing live pictures of the
gate at that time. He cannot remember Mr JACKSON in
the Control Box at that time and the major concern of
Messrs KELLY, KIRTON and MACKRELL at that time was
whether or not to abandon the game.
R59 On leaving the Control Box, Mr KELLY called a
meeting of interested parties including representatives
of the three clubs, the referee, Chief Superintendent
DUCKENFIELD and Mr JACKSON.
R60 The meeting was held in the Boardroom at about
1530 hours and there is no evidence to suggest that
anything other than the question of abandoning the
match was discussed there.
R61 At 1640 hours Mr KELLY was interviewed live on
television and he spoke of two versions concerning the
cause of the overcrowding - the fans’ account that the
police had opened the gate, and the police assertion
that the Liverpool fans had forced their way in.
Lord Justice Tavlor’s
Interim Report
Para 257
Documents 7-8
Pages 7-8
Document 11
Page 12
R62 At about 1915 hours a Press Conference was held
at Snig Hill when Chief Constable. Mr Peter WRIGHT,
made it clear that a gate had been opened by police
because of a danger to life through crushing outside
the ground, and he also made reference to the forcing
of the iron perimeter gates outside Leppings Lane
turnstiles.
R63 Notices under Regulation 6 were served on
Assistant Chief Constable Mr JACKSON and a letter dated
2 February 1990 from Assistant Chief Constable Mr JONES
covers the format of these.
Complaint (a) - 8 November 1989 -Assistant Chief
Constable Mr JONES.
Complaint (b) - 12 January 1990 - Assistant Chief
Constable Mr JONES.
• >•
•• • ,
■ "• -
R64 The delay between receipt of the complaints and
the service of notices was as a result of medical■ : v-vV-
advice from the officer’s General Practitioner.
R65 When interviewed under cautimi on 28 June 1990 Mr
JACKSON maintained his assertion that he was unaware of
the true nature of the opening of Gate G until
Superintendent MARSHALL explained it
1615 hours. The only polling i.sue i. Mr JAOSOH-S
failure to reronstrate with Chief Superintendent
DUCKENFIELD once he found out the full and accurate
' 2 !. ' ' . - -• . •• " -
situation. However, there is insufficient evidence
available to show that there was any collusion between
Mr JACKSON and Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD in
respect of the opening of Gate C, or any other gate.
This complaint is, therefore, unsubstantiated.
ANTECEDENTS
R66 Walter JACKSON is 53 years of age having been
born on a married man
and owner/occupier of his detached house at Q
R67 He joined Manchester City Police on 13 October
1961 after 3 years service in The Royal Air Force
Police serving in Kuala Lumpur, Malaya and Changi,
Singapore.
R68 He has performed duties throughout his career in
Manchester City Police and Salford Police on
amalgamation in 1968 and Greater Manchester in 1974
which has encompassed uniform patrol, detective duties
and in 1980 he was seconded to the Police Staff
College, Bramshill Directing Staff on the Intermediate
Command Course.
R69 He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in
January 1968, Inspector in September 1971, Chief
Inspector in April 1974. On promotion to
2 9
Superintendent in September 1976 he commanded the CID
in P Division, Rochdale, Greater Manchester Police and
January 1978 became Deputy Divisional Commander in B
Division (North Manchester). On return from the
Directing Staff at the Police Staff College he took
command of D Division (South East Manchester) which
included Manchester International Airport and then in
September 1983 he was posted to E Division (South West
Manchester) where he commanded the area that included
Moss Side and Maine Road Football Ground.
R70 On 1 May 1985 he transferred to South Yorkshire
Police and was promoted to the rank of Assistant Chief
Constable being responsible for Operations and Traffic
and in July 1989 took charge of the Management Services
Department.
R71 He has no matters of a disciplinary nature
recorded against him and was commended in 1971 by a
Crown Court Judge for the manner in which he dealt with
serious crime investigations regarding robbery.
R72 He is the holder of the Police Long Service and
Good Conduct Medal and the Royal Air Force General
Service Medal (Malaya).
RECOMMENDATION
R73 One copy of this file is submitted to the Police
Complaints Authority for consideration as to the
sending of a statement to the South Yorkshire Police
Authority that this investigation has, or has not been
conducted to the satisfaction of the Police Complaints
Authority. A copy of this report is enclosed for
onward transmission to the South Yorkshire Police
Authority with the Police Complaints Authority
statement. This would be desirable because the
references in the margins of the report relate to
statements, documents and video exhibits which are
contained in the Main File already with the Director of
Public Prosecutions, and the Police Complaints
Authority, but which is not yet with the Chief
Constable of South Yorkshire Police or his Police
Authority.
R74 By agreement with the Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police the Main File will not be forwarded to
him until after the Director of Public Prosecutions has
made the decisions as to prosecution in respect of all
the main participants in the causes of the disaster.
It seems sensible to delay the sending of the JACKSON
file to South Yorkshire Police Authority until the Main
File is sent to Chief Constable, South Yorkshire
Police, after the Director of Public Prosecutions has
notified his decisions as to prosecution.
L SHARPCHIEF CONSTABLE CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY
West Midlands Police
DOCUMENT SECTION
Reference No. _______113.9-
Investigating L SHARP, CHIEF CONSTABLE,
O lficer
DOCUMENT LIST
DESCRIPTION
Schedule of deceased entering through Gate C after 1452 hours, 15 April 1989, including their respective alcohol levels.
Letter dated 25 July 1989, confirming Assistant Chief Constable Mr K P D COOPER, Northamptonshire Police, as the investigating officer in the complaint against South Yorkshire Police.
Letter dated 4 August 1989, from Captain E N TAYLOR, Police Complaints Authority, confirming his supervision of the complaint on behalf of the Authority.
Letter dated 5 September 1989, from Captain E N TAYLOR, Police Complaints Authority, to Assistant Chief Constable Mr COOPER, Northamptonshire Police, informing him that the enquiry will be dealt with by another force.
Letter dated 5 December 1989, from Assistant Chief Constable Mr JONES,West Midlands Police, to Assistant Chief Constable Mr ANDERSON, South Yorkshire Police, acknowledging receipt of letter dated 30 November 1989, regarding complaint made by Mr Trevor HICKS, and accepting the responsibility for the investigation on behalf of Chief Constable Mr DEAR, West Midlands Police.
Letter dated 7 December 1989, from Captain E N TAYLOR, Police Complaints Authority, to Assistant Chief Constable ANDERSON, South Yorkshire Police, confirming his supervision of the complaint made by Mr Trevor HICKS.
Regulation 7 Notice dated 8 November 1989.
Regulation 7 Notice dated 12 January 1990.
r
NUMBER
9
10
DESCRIPTION
Letter dated 17 July 1990, from Mr Leslie SHARP, Chief Constable, Cumbria Constabulary, to Mr Richard WELLS, Chief Constable, South Yorkshire Police, regarding routing of papers for criminal investigation.
PAGEfSY
9-10
Letter dated 24 July 1990, from Mr Richard WILLS, Chief Constable, South Yorkshire Police, to Mr Leslie SHARP, Chief Constable, Cumbria Constabulary, agreeing with routing procedure.
Letter dated 2 February 1990 from Assistant Chief Constable Mr JONES, West Midlands Police, to Assistant Chief Constable Mr JACKSON, South Yorkshire Police, regarding service of the Regulation 6 Notices in respect of the complaint made by Mr HICKS.
11
12
’ '• :
•-V'-
■ ■■■■■
■ : . ■ ■■ ■ ■
:; ■ ■; ■
V, -I-:--'
. . .
DOCUMENT No.INQ14-36
AFTER
SCHEDULE OF DECEASED ENTERING GATE C
1452 HOURS 15 APRIL 1989
DECEASED BODY NO (As Dr A R Part IV St
NAME¥ FORREST’S Pages 2433-2456)
ALCOHOL LEVEL
1 HOWARD Thomas 20 MG
16 MURRAY Paul Brian None
19 COX Tracey None
21 FITZSIMMONS Vincent None
22 MATHEWS Brian None
23 BURKETT Peter 99 MG
24 ROGERS Henry Charles None
26 MCALLISTER Francis Joseph None
34 OWENS Johnathon None
39 TOOTLE Peter None
42 HEWITSON Paul Anthony 88 MG
45 JOYNES Nicholas Peter 72 MG
59 HORN Gordon 55 MG
62 GLOVER Barry 138 MG
63 JONES Richard less than 10 MG
68 McBRIEN John None
71 COPOC Stephen Paul 49 MG
74 BALL Kester None
76 ANDERSON John 76 MG
77 WILDE Martin None
79 ROBERTS Graham 79 MG
81 HOWARD Thomas Anthony 34 MG
84 BRADY Paul 13 MG
DOCUMENT No
Discipline & Complaints ACC/GD/MR 235/F27/89
25 July 1989
D J O'Dowd, Esq., QPM, BA, MSc, CBIMChief Constable
Northamptonshire PoliceWootton Hall
NorthamptonNN4 OJQ
Dear
Hillsborough Disaster
A letter of complaint, directed through the Home Secretary, has been made against Chief Superintendent Duckenfield of this Force arising out of the above.
I write to formally request that you allow Assistant Chief Constable,Mr X P D Cooper, of your Force to undertake this enquiry on my behalf.
For your information, ray Chief Constable has asked the Police Complaints Authority to supervise the investigation.
Yours sincerely
Mr V Hicks
Middlesex
J & J lO')
Your tvicrer.n'
Our reference
D ale h A u g u s t 1989
itt ^
I arn w t i t i n g as a M e m b e r o f the P o l ic e C o m p l a i n t s A u th o r i t y .
In his l e t t e r d a t e d 25 Ju ly 1989, Mr Wrigh t t h e C h i e f C o n s ta b l e o f the South Y o rksh i re o h c e a d v i s e d you t h a t h e c o n s i d e r e d the l e t t e r you h ad w r i t t e n t o t h e H o m e S e c r e t a r y
on une c o n s t i t u e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t C h i e f S u p e r i n t e n d e n t D u c k en f ie ld . S u b se q u e n t ly he a p p o i n t e d K P D C o o p e r Esq, A s s i s t a n t C h i e f C o n s t a b l e N o r t h a m p t o n s h i r e Po li ce , to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e m a t t e r .
South Y o rk sh i r e P o l i c e h a v e n ow r e f e r r e d t h e m a t t e r to t h e A u t h o r i t y , who h a v e d e c i d e dto s u p e r v i s e th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f your c o m p l a i n t . 1 shal l b e t h e M e m b e r r e s p o n s ib le f o r your c a s e . r
I h av e asKed Mr C o o p e r t o a r r a n g e a m e e t i n g to d i scu s s var ious p o in t s w i th you . I am sure lie wil l be in to u ch v e ry s h o r t l y .
C.-' ' V*'/
E N T A Y L O R A u t h o r i t y M e m b e r
3
1 * = - 0 9 - 0 5 13 24 POLICE COHPLHiNTS DOCUMENT No. 41 O L i c n iU Ureat Ueorge Street, London SW1P3AE
AUTHORITY Telephone: 01-273
D J O’Dowd Esq QPM BA MSc CBIMChief ConstableNorthamptonshire PoliccWootton HailNorthamptonNNU OJQ
Your reference
Our reference INV/89 1 3 1 /7 9
D“ p*;
I refer to today's telephone conversation regarding the Hillsbrough enquiry. As discussed require Assistant Chief Constable Cooper, as the current Investigating Officer, to
serve Regulation 7 notices on the officers named by Mr Hicks in his statement of 24 ugust 1989. It js important that the notices are served without delay.
I confirm that Mr Cooper is only required to serve the notices and the enquiry will then e dealt with by another force. As soon as the situation regarding the appointment of
the new Investigating Officer is resolved, I will inform both yourself and Mr Cooper in order that arrangements can be made for the transfer of documents etc.
Again thank you for your assistance in this matter.
•^ y
E N TAYLOR Authority Membor
4
DOCUMENT No. 5J MERVYIM J O N E S M S cASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE
FUflN IV AL MOUSEFurnival Gate
Sheff ie ld S1 4QN
T elephone: 0 7 4 2 7 3 1 5 4 6
Fax: 0 7 4 2 7 3 1 4 8 3
H IL L S B O R O U G H IN Q U IR Y T E A M
WEST MIDLANDS POLICE HQf’O Box 5 2 , Lloyd H ouse
Colmore Circus Q u e e n s w a y Birmingham B4 6NQ
Telephone: 0 2 1 - 2 3 6 5 0 0 0 , ex tn . 2 0 2 5
NECHELLS GREEN POLICE STATION Your Ref:
Medico Legal CentreT elephone: 0 7 4 2 7 2 6 1 0 5 Fax: 0 7 4 2 7 2 6 2 4 7
Fowler S tree t
Birmingham B7 5DA
T elephone: 0 2 1 3 5 9 3 3 3 2Our Ref: JMJ/VSC
Date: 5 December 1989
K S Anderson Esq
Assistant Chief Constable
(Complaints/Discipline)South Yorkshire PoliceSnig Hill
SheffieldS3 8LY
Dear Mr Anderson
HILLSBOROUGH COMPLAINT - TREVOR HICKS
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 30 November 1989 in respect of a complaint against police made by the above-named person.
On behalf of Mr Dear, who will act as Investigating Officer, I formally accept responsibility for the investigation into this matter.
I have noted the Police Complaints Authority interest in the complaint.
Yours sincerely
PLEA SE REPLY T O T H E O FFIC E A T Ll?yd House, Birmingham
5
• P o n r F DOCUMENT No. 6 ^ -1 -^ 10 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AE
C om plaints ______________A u t h o r i t y Telephone: 01-273 6 fyUO
K S Anderson Esq Assistant Chief Constable South Yorkshire Police Snig Hill SHEFFIELD South Yorkshire S3 8LY
Your reference
KSA/GD/NJP 395/F 58/89Our reference
INV/89 131/145 ENTDate
7 December 1989
Dear Mr Anderson
COMPLAINT BY TREVOR HICKS
I confirm that the Police Complaints Authority have decided to supervise the investi gation and it will be incorporated in the investigation currently being undertaken by Mr U6Hr •
i.I shall be writing to Mr Hicks advising him that the Authority will be supervising the investigation of his complaint.
Yours sincerely
E t\ i(rtjujtsrKAuthority Member
ja
c c West Midlands
6
DOCUMENT No. 7WP 666 <S.O. BT6}' A m e n q e c J 4 8 5 )
West Midlands The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 Regulation 7
Police NO TICE O F REPORT, A L L E G A TIO N OR CO M PLAINT
C & D Ref .
D a t e
From: Mr G J DEAR
Chief ConstableTo: Mr Walter JACKSON
Assistant Chief Constable
In accordance with the requirements o f Regulation 7 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, I hereby inform you of
a * Complaint_____________________________________________________________ which has been made against you.
N A TU R E OF * Complaint___________
On Saturday, 15 April 1989, at Hillsborough Football Ground, Sheffield, a disaster occurred, in which 95 people died.
Trevor HICKS of I I
Middlesex, the father of two of the deceased, Sarah Louise HICKS and Victoria Jane HICKS, has made the following allegation relating to your duties at the ground on 15 April 1989;
(a) That you failed to take control of the disaster.
You have the right to consult a friend at all stages o f the investigation and service o f this form does not necessarily imply
that disciplinary proceedings w ill follow . It is served to safeguard your interests.
You are not as the Regulation explains, obliged to say anything concerning the matter, but you may if you so desire, make
a written or oral statement concerning the matter to me or to the Assistant Chief Constable. t®he)<3tM«fxQ!>n5tai5tect««
rfri«tft!e{M»xii BKty){0ncteK£K{rfatfixK)&Gcfct*K»feaiexi&giri
YOU ARE. HOWEVER. WARNED THAT IF YOU MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT TO ME OR TO THE ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE, THE STATEMENT MAY BE USED IN ANY SUBSr ~ “ r~“ ~r'™ ,™ ,n' '* 'APV op™»ccPINGS.
‘ Insert the w ord "re p o rt", "a llega tion " o r "co m p la in t" as appropriate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
(copy to be signed)
SERVICE
I acknowledge having been served w ith the original of this Notice,
Data Signatt Rank Number
I served the original of this Notice upon /the within named at:-
TimeI M - ^ O
Data
^he w ithir
U. 8-^.
task Number
A tC jC-,
•7
ENT No. aWP 666 (S.O. B16) (Amended 4.8 S)
W est Midlands The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 Regulation 7
PoMce N O TIC E OF REPORT, A L L E G A T IO N OR C O M P LA IN T
C & D Bat.
Date
From: MR G.J. DEARCHIEF CONSTABLE
To: MR WALTER JACKSONASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE
In accordance with the requirements of Regulation 7 of the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1 9 8 5 ,1 hereby inform you of
a * COMPLAINT_____________________________________________________ which has been made against you.
N A TU R E OF * COMPLAINT
On Saturday 15 April 1989 at Hillsborough Football Ground, Sheffield, a
disaster occurred in which 95 people died.
Trevor HICKS of [Middlesex, hasmade a previous allegation in relation to your duties at the ground.He has now made the following further allegation;
That he, Mr Hicks, made an allegation against Chief Superintendent DUCKENFIELD that he was deceitful and intentionally misled the public and senior Police Officers, including yourself, in relation to the opening of Gate ’ C* in Leppings Lane. However Mr Hicks now alleges that he questions whether you were unaware of the real circumstances relating to the opening of gate ’C*. Mr Hicks therefore considers there may have been collusion between yourself and Mr DUCKENFIELD concerning this point.
You have the right to consult a friend at all stages o f the investigation and service o f this form does not necessarily imply
that disciplinary proceedings w ill follow. It is served to safeguard your interests.
You are not as the Regulation explains, obliged to say anything concerning the matter, but you may if you so desire, make
a w ritten or oral statement concerning the matter to me or to the Assistant Chief Constable. (Tho Chief Constable has
delegat ed his author ity und er Regulation 1&-ef the above Regulations to-the A ssistant Chiof Constoblo).
YOU ARE, HOWEVER, WARNED THAT IF YOU MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT TO ME OR TO THfe ASSISTANT- CHIEF GQN&TAWrfr, THE STATEMENT MAY BE USED IN ANY SUBSET JCEEDINGS.
* Insert the w ord “ rep o rt", “ allegation" o r "co m p la in t" as appropriate.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
(copy to be signed)
SERVICE
I acknowledge having been served w ith the original of this Notice.
Data Signa
I served the original o f this Notice upon p ic w u im namvu »
Number
Tim a Data 'S4 z r1 ^ . I.
8
DOCUMENT No. 9
}
LS/SA
17 July 1990
Mr Richard Wells Esq Chief Constable South Yorkshire Police Police Headquarters Snig Hill
Sheffield S3 8LY
Following our telephone conversation of recent date I write to you with a proposition in connection with the routeing of the papers arising from the crime investigation into the Hillsborough disaster.
You will know that my investigation into the criminal and disciplinary aspects is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. At the end of my investigation, which is not far off, the PCA must make a statement that it issatisfied with the conduct of the investigation. That statement will be sentto you, the complainants and to the officers whose conduct has been called into question. The only exception to that will be the PCA statement in respect ofyour Assistant Chief Constable Mr Walter JACKSON. In his case the PCAstatement will go to your Police Authority.
In strict accord with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the way for this to be achieved is for me to submit my original report to the PCA, and at the same time send a copy to you (or your Police Authority). Once the PCA is satisfied with my investigation it sends the forementioned statement to that effect, to you (or to your Police Authority).
You (or your Police Authority) are then required first to consider matters related to any criminal offences revealed in the report and refer them to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thereafter you are required to submit a report to the PCA setting out your opinions as to the merits of the complaints against police officers; any disciplinary charges preferred or proposed; the merits or otherwise of convening a disciplinary tribunal; and any reasons for not preferring disciplinary charges.
My proposition is that for various reasons; including the referral of the matter by Peter Wright to the DPP in the first place; the complex circumstances of the investigation; the bulk of the documentary and other evidence; and the
Continued...
9
DOCUMENT No. 9
2 .
need for expediency; you allow me to deal direct with the DPP in so far as the crime aspects are concerned. Of course, you will receive the PCA statement at the appropriate time and you will receive all of the evidence and reports in time for your consideration of the disciplinary aspects with the PCA. The matters relating to your Assistant Chief Constable would not be affected.
I hope that this letter is comprehensible and that you will agree to ray proposal, in which case a short letter of reply would be appreciated.
CHIEF CONSTABLE CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY INVESTIGATING OFFICER
Enc
1 0
R B WELLS OPM MA
CHIEF CONSTABLE
TELEPHONE:
SHEFFIELD (0742) 768522
11.1 I \ : 547096
F\X: ((1742) 523243
SO tTH YORKSHIRE POLICE
POLIC E HEADQUARTERS
S \ l ( , HILL
SHEFFIELD S3 8LY
24 July 1990
L Sharp Esq QPM LLB FBIM
Chief Constable
Hillsborough Inquiry Team
c/o West Midlands Police
Nechells Green Police Station Fowler Street
Birmingham B7 5DA
Many thanks for your letter of 17 July 1990 which concerns the routeing of your report to the DPP.
I quite understand that there are exceptional circumstances which surround
your investigation and that the bulk of the material which accompanies
your report is considerable. It is also relevant that the matter wasreferred to the DPP by Peter Wright in the first instance, and the needfor expediency should require no argument.
Of course, I am directly concerned only with the matters which involve
°fficers and below the rank of Chief Superintendent, so I cannot speak for my Police Authority which is concerned with officers of ACPO rank.
I have no objection to your submitting your report to the DPP through the PCA without sending a copy to me.
I understand that in due course I shall receive a statement from the
PCA in respect of your conduct of the investigation and that I shall
receive all the reports and supporting evidence in good time for me toconsider any disciplinary aspects of the case.
I trust that this letter is sufficient for your purposes and that it will help to bring the matter to a swift conclusion.
Richard Wells
POLICE COMPLAINTS1990- 08-15 14:37
/ * '. vONES MSc
. 1 ANT CHIEF CONSTABLEH IL L S B O R O U G H IN Q U IR Y T E A M
WEST MIDLANDS POLICE HQ PO Box 52, Lloyd House Cotmore Cireus Queensway Birmingham 84 6NQ Telephone: 021-236 5000, exm. 2025
NECHELLS GREEN POLICE STATION Fowler Street Birmingham B7 6DA Telephone: 021-359 3332
012736401
W W Jackson Esq Assistant Chief Constable (Operations) South Yorkshire Police Headquarters Snig Hill Sheffield S3 8LY
DOCUMENT No.FURNIVAL HOUSE Furnlvsl Oete Shaffield SI 4QN Telephone: 0742 731546 Fax: 0742 731483
Medico Legal CentreTelephone: 0742 726105 Fax: 0742 726247
Your Ref:
Our Ref: JHJ/VSC
Dalo: 2 February 1990
You Will recall that 1 served notices of two separate complaints by Mr Trevor Hicks on you on 8 November 1989 and 12 January 1990. The -service of the notices by me was on behalf of Mr G J Dear, Investigating Officer. The service of the notices complied with Regulation 6 of the Police (Discipline) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1985 and not, as was indicated on the form, in respect of Regulation 7. The content of the notices indicating that Mr Hicks had made these two separate complaints was not affected in any way and, therefore, the notifications are still relevant.
I trust this clarifies the authority under which you received the advice as far as the existence of the complaints made by Mr Hicks. I do apologise if this has caused you any inconvenience.ap
)
PLEASE REPLY TO THE OFFICE AT Lloyd House.,. Birmingham
12