the document

Transcription

the document

CC 5 16 Z.
'S IS
O M
/
US!
■K '~ ■i|l[B5
-t
K
Silverman*Livermore
r O
L
I -C-I
-T H d
•r • s
11/13 Victoria Street, Liverpool L2 5 Q Q
Telephone: 051 227 1871.
D X : 14190.
Fax: 051 255 0216
_
f
DRF/SB
O ur rer;
Your ref:
Dr S F Popper
HM Coroner for South Yorkshire
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
Sheffield
W hen calling please ask for:
MR
ERASES
9th March 1990
Dear Dr Popper
Following what I thought was a very useful and Informative meeting on
Tuesday I have issued a letter to all members of our group who act for
bereaved families putting them in the picture and I think it might be useful
if you have a copy of the letter and the form to which it refers so that if
you get queries direct from Solicitors about anything which is said in the
letter then at least you wi11 know what they are taking about!
I trust that the suggested procedure in terms of questions meets with your
approval, I do hope I interpreted what you said on Tuesday correctly and
although I anticipate that very few families will have any queries to raise
having seen their particular summary I think that if there is a form of
common approach by them either directly to your office or through me then it
will be easier for all concerned.
If you feel that the letter or form is not truly reflective of your wishes
please let me know as quickly as possible and I will issue an adendum.
Your^sincerely
Ufa.
—*
jo
id cûat
Shy
6U
LeXltj*
îA jJ_ ixw ot
A .F . F A R R A N D L L .B . , C.P, S T E B B I N G L L .B ,, E .M . S H E L V E Y L L . B . , D . R . F R A S E R , J .L . W A L K E R LL.B.
A ls o at: R u t l a n d H o u se Mai?, Shoppin g Cit y, R u n c o r n W A T 2ES, Teh1 C928 714121, Fax: 0928 718135
137 L e a th e rs L a n e , H a le w o o d , I..26 0TS, Tel: 051-486 01 3 1 /2
A n d in A s s o c ia tio n w ith L A M B E R T et A S S O C IE S B -tl SO L e Aven-je D e f r e 19 Brus sels B elgiu m .
T h i s firm is r eg u late d bv th e L a w Society in th e co ndu c t of I n v e s tm e n t Business.
V A T Rce . N o . 164 4312 81
V
,
HILLSBOROUGH
STEERING
COMMITTEE
c/o CastCc Chambers, Cook_Strcct, LivcrpooCL2 9 S 9 1
TcC: 051 2 5 5 0 6 2 8 T cvq 051 2 3 6 0 0 4 7 ( D X 1 4 10 0
Our ref:
DEF/SB/INQUESTS
Your ref:
To All Solicitors Acting For
Bereaved Families
Date:
9th March 1990
Dear Sirs
Hopefully you will by now seen Bulletin 14 issued on the 5th March, this is
the letter to which Liz Steel refers at the beginning of the second
paragraph on page one.
In response to his invitation to this Committee I appeared before H.M
Coroner for South Yorkshire Dr. S. L. Popper at the Medico-legal Centre,
Watery Street, Sheffield on Tuesday of this week and having
heard
representations from myself and Solicitors representing various other
interested bodie Dr. Popper confirmed that he will resume the 95 inquests
on a strictly limited basis on the 18th April 1990.
H.M. Coroner has been under considerable pressure from a variety of sources
notably this Committee, the Hillsborough Family Support Group and Messrs
Hammond Suddard acting for South Yorkshire Police on the instructions of the
M.M.I.
to release certain informat ion in advance of the resumption of the
Inquests .. . the majority of that pressure relates to the release of what
Dr. Popper calls "non-controversial information" which many of the families
want and which, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with any potential
criminal proceedings.
As a result of their investigations into the Hillsborough Disaster for Lord
Justice Taylor and then for the Director of Public Prosecutions and also for
H.M Coroner himself officers of West Midlands Police have amassed a great
deal of information about the movements of most (but not all) of the 95 fans
who died and that information is contained in the statements, still
photographs, sections of video film etc held by West Midlands Police in
Birmingham. It is not possible for either West Midlands Police or H.M.
Coroner to release all the information they have at this stage because some
of it relates to the "criminal" aspect of the investigation but it is
possible to summarise from each of the 95 separate files
detailed
information about the movements of each deceased from the time they iett
home until the time death was certified in the temporary mortuary at the
ground or in hospital and such summaries are currently in the course ot
preparation.
The summaries are being prepared by senior officers from the West Midlands
Force and are being scrutinized by other more senior officers and then by
Dr.
Popper himself before they are to be released to ensure that they
contain no controversial details and that they are accurate and as detailed
as possible in the circumstances.
The Director
of
Public
Prosecutions has confirmed to a H.M.
Coroner that
this non-controversial information may be released now to the families in
accordance with a strictly laid down procedure and this procedure is as
follows.
As soon as possible copies of the 95 summaries will be sent to this
Committee and a copy of the summary relating to each i n d i v i d u a l deceased
will be sent to the Solicitors on record with H.M.
Coroner as being
the
practice acting for the immediate next of kin.
No photographs or video film extracts will be issued but references to these
will almost certainly be included in the summary and if for any reason the
family particularly wants to see the photograph or video film extract then
the Coroner will consider each request for this information on its merits.
The Coroner does not feel that the supplyinyg of photographs etc is
necessary at this stage, the pictures may cause further grief and many of
the families have seen them anyway during discussions with West Midlands
officers.
There is also the problem of logistics and the Coroner is trying
to keep everything as simple as possible for the time being.
A "flow chart" may also to be issued (although no firm decision has been
made about this) and this chart will show movement of each deceased within
certain time bands and will indentify the individual (whether a relative, a
member of the public or police officer) who identifies the deceased at a
particular spot or time either prior to or following his or her death.
It is for you to advise your cl ient when you have received this summary, we
strongly recommend that you do not simply send the summary to your client
without prior warning as they are likely to contain information which may
cause distress if seen without prior warning and although it is of course up
to you to decide how you impart this information to your client we recommend
that you tell your client that you have the summary available and invite
them to either request a copy or preferably see them to go through it with
them before deciding whether to release a full copy to them for their own
use.
The summary should be read in conjunction with the Post-Mortem Report which
we anticipate you will have already obtained.
In our view it is likely that sane families will not want to be made aware
of the contents of the summary in detail but we feel that it is important
that they at least have the option to choose whether they avail themselves
of the opportunity to see it or not, at present they do not have tha
option.
We believe that it is likely that many families having seen the summary will
be satisfied with the factual information it contains and will not want to
take any further action. Their summary will simply be presented in a formal
way in open Court in Sheffield and thus taken into public record.
For details of what we suggest you do in the event that your clients have
queries arising from the summary or they want to attend the Inques
personally please see below.
Each summary will be presented personally by the officer w h o prepared it to
H.M. Coroner in accordance with a timetable which will be published as soon
as possible and it is hoped that eight summaries a day can be received by
H.M. Coroner sitting in Open Court with a Jury.
At the conclusion of the presentation of the 95 summaries the Coroner will
adjourn his Jury without asking them to return any verdict.
In the event that the Director of Public Prosecutions then subsequently
instigates criminal proceedings against any individual or organization n
connection with this disaster then it is likely (but not certain) that
Coroner will not resume the inquests again following the decision of the
Crown, Court Jury. If on the other hand no criminal proceedings were brought
' then H.M. Coroner would reconvene his Jury following the announcement by
the D.D.P.
of his intention not to pursue the matter and decide what
evidence he would then call to enable him to invite the Jury to return
whatever
verdict
seemed
most
appropriate
in
the
circumstances.
The hearings at which these summaries will be presented will therefore be
"low key" and not afford anyone the opportunity to cross examine police
officers, club officials etc as they will not be giving evidence.
These hearings are intended to be an exercise in distributing informat ion to
fami 1ies about precisely how their loved ones died and where and not an
attempt to discover why or who was to blame.
The hearings will take place during the period 18th April to 4th May
inclusive at the Medico-Legal Centre, Sheffield and as soon as the timetable
for the hearings is known we will circulate it to all firms who receive this
letter and it will be up to you to notify your individual clients of the
date and time upon which their Inquest will be heard.
There is no obligation on any family to attend the hearing but they are of
course more than welcome to be present when their summary is presented if
they wish.
In some cases families will have queries either on contents
Reports or on the summary itself
As a result of our discussions with H.M.
following procedure be adopted in such cases.
of
Post-Morten
Coroner we recommend that the
Families who have such queries should instruct you to set out their
questions in a short form and that form should be copied to H.M. Coroner
and ourselves.
We enclose such a form for your use.
West Midlands Police to ascertain the information required (if it is
available and felt to be appropriate) and have the details available at the
individual hearing.
In r-aca=»c; Qf particular queries concerning the contents of Post-Mortem
Reports if the information cannot be supplied by letter or would be best
explained to the family by the pathologist concerned then he may be asked to
attend for that particular inquest to deal with the question from the
witness box.
This Steering Committee will be represented throughout the entire period of
the hearings and as your client's Inquest is reopened the question which you
have previously given notice of will be asked on your client's behalf by the
Solicitor present and if the information is available it will be given by
the summary presenting officer as part of his evidence. We will report that
information to you and if you wish you can bespeak a copy of the shorthand
transcript which will be available for each Inquest.
If for any reason your client is not willing to allowthe member of
Committee present in Court to put his or her question for any reason
you may attend on his or her behalf and put the question yourself,
Coroner anticipates that there will be some families who will wish to
their own Solicitors present to represent than.
this
then
H.M.
have
We should however sound a note of caution about costs at this stage.
After great difficulty we have persuaded the Municipal Mutual Insurers to
fund the cost of "block representation" and this means that a member of this
Committee will be present throughout the entire period the Inquests are
running but if your client wants you to appear personally you must deal with
the question of your costs for doing so directly with the M.M.I. They have
not said that they would not meet any individual Solicitors costs but they
have indicated that they would only be prepared to do so in exceptional
circumstances and this is a matter which you must take up with the Insurers
yourself before deciding to travel to Sheffield to represent your client.
The M.M.I have accepted the proposition that you will be entitled to recover
your reasonable costs for going through the summary with your client and
corresponding with H.M.
Coroner and ourselves prior to the Inquests ...
these costs can simply be included as part of your general profit charges in
connection with the civil claim for damages.
We must stress that as this is an information dissemination exercise by H.M.
Coroner he is unlikely to accept any questions which might be regarded as
being of a controversial nature and he will only accept questions which
clear up any ambiguity in the summary.
Before H.M. Coroner begins dealing with the 95 individual Inquests on the
19th April he will receive a generic evidence on Wednesday the 18th April.
This generic evidence is likely to come from a variety of witnesses.
The first witness is likely to be Dr. Forest. He will formally present the
94 blood alcohol level Reports which were prepared (no sample was taken from
one very young fan) and he will explain the basis of the work he did. This
will have the effect of formally bringing into public record his Reports, we
hope to be able to obtain copies of the blood alcohol level Report for each
fan in advance and we do not anticipate that there will be any real issue
over the blood alcohol level present in any individual deceased.
A senior police officer will then give evidence to explain certain terms and
expressions used in the summaries and on the "flow charts" and again we do
not anticipate that his evidence would be controversial in any way.
It is then proposed to call Professor Usher to given an overview of the
pathology of the types of injuries which were sustained. This will again be
evidence of a general nature and is unlikely to make reference to any
individual and will for example explain what happens to the human body when
it is compressed due to pressure and unable to absorb oxygen ...
his
evidence is likely to be distressing to families but will hopefully clear up
much anxiety and show that many fans simply "went to sleep" without any
great discomfort because of lack of oxygen.
Finally, H.M. Coroner may call such further evidence of a generic nature as
he feels appropriate as the 18th April approaches.
As we have said wo will have a presence throughout the 95 Inquests and we
are more than happy to act as your "Agent" and put your client's questions
to the summary presenting officer and report back appropriately to you,
there will be no agnecy account rendered by us to you or your client for
this service.
We stress again that the next of kin and wider family are welcome to attend
if they wish to hear their particular summary being represented but they are
unlikely to be able to put quesitons to the summary presenting officer
unless those questions have previously been notified to H.M.
Coroner and
ourselves in writing, please bear in mind that the Coroner will be trying to
get through 8 Inquests a day over a 3 week period and any timetable drawn in
advance must be strictly adhered to if families are to have their particular
Inquest heard at the time previously notified.
Any family who indicates an intention to attend and who are late for any
reason will not have their Inquest held up pending their arrival ’
Coroner is very sympathetic towards all the families involved but once these
Inquests start to run the timetable must be strictly adhered to if everybody
is to be satisfied.
We are not able to tell you when you will receive your client's summary or
summaries at the moment, they are not all prepared but you may rest assured
that they will be sent to you by H.M.
Coroner as ^
'
are
available.
If you have not already obtained a copy of the Post-Mortem
Report from the Coroner's office in Sheffield we urge you to do so
immediately.
Please return a separate copy of the enclosed questionnaire in relation to
each deceased for who you act to ourselves and forward a copy to KM.
Coroner as soon as possible after you have seen the summary and in any event
no later than Tuesday the 10th April in any event as any questions notified
after that date may not be capable of being investigated and dealt with
before the Inquests begin.
For our part we believe that this move by H.M.
Oaranear to inipert
information to families is to be applauded and we have taken the liberty
f
making that point in open Court and through the press. The
no obligation to act in the way that he is and we believe that his sta _
intentions to assist families in any way he can by providing this
information are entirely genuine and we trust that those
who you
represent will accept this move on his behalf in the way in which we believe
that it is intended.
Although the primary intention of Dr Popper is to give f
1ieJff
about how their loved one died, one of the beneficial side effects o y
receiving these summaries now will be that you will be in a better
5tTass2s the pre-death terror/pre-death pain and suffering element in the
damages claim and you will in due cause receive our further views^ on this
aspect in a future Bulletin, together with a report on our continuing
negotiations with the Insurers.
At the meeting on Tuesday H.M.Coroner was at pains to stress that he has no
inside^nforraation" a i Z t the intentions of the D.P.P. as regards crmina
proceedings and he stressed that his motives in reopening the Inquests at
this stage were directed only at supplying information to families.
It is unlikely that we will issue a general Bulletin dealing
Inquests before they reopen but the writer will te more than
with individual queries which arise either as a result of the
this letter or as a result of problems raised by clients, or
be directed to the Law Library quoting the reference shown in
this letter.
If there are any significant changes to the information
will get back to you.
Yours sincerely
,
____ A____ I___
set
solely
h^PPJ7
with
contents
let ers
the heading at
out above
we
*■ H I L L S B O R O U G H
STEERING
COMMITTEE
c/o Cos tie ChamBcrs, Cook^Strctt, LivcrpooC L2 9S9f
<Te[: 051 255 0628 J cvq 051 236 0047 <DX14100
NAME OF DECEASED:
NAME OF SOLICITORS:
ACTING FOR:
RELATIONSHIP TO DECEASED:
QUESTIONS (please keep these
brief and confine than to
matters arising from the
Summary and Post-Morton
Report only).
If you have queries to raise please ensure that this form is returned to us
and copied to H.M. Coroner, Medico-Legal Centre, Watery Street, Sheffield as
soon as possible and in any event no later than 10th April 1990.
FURNiVAL HOUSE
Furnival Gate
Sheffield S1 4QN
Telephone: 0742 731546
Fax:
0742 731483
J MERVYM J O N E S MScASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE
H IL L S B O R O U G H I N Q U I R Y T E A M
£ / ’/?»
WEST M IDLANDS POLICE HQ
PO Box 52, Lloyd House
Colmore Circus Queensway
Birmingham B4 6NQ
Telephone: 021-236 5000, extn. 2025
M e d i c o Legal C entre
Telephone: 0742 726105
Fax:
0742 726247
Your Ref:
NECHELLS GREEN POLICE STATION
Fowler Street
Birmingham B7 5DA
Telephone: 021-359 3332
Our Ref:
JMJ/VSC
Date:
22 March 1990
Dr S L Popper LL.B B.MED Sci BM BS MRCGP
HM Coroner
South Yorkshire (West District)
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
Sheffield
S3 7ET
I have prepared a note for your file with regard to the meeting of
6 March 1990. I am satisfied that it contains a reasonable resume of
what took place, although the narrative has been rearranged to ensure
a logical flow. If you would like to alter any part of the record
please let me know.
KA\
/ *■y
■
PLEASE REPLY TO THE OFFICE A T
Lloyd House,_Birmingham
DRAFT NOTE FOR FILE - to be agreed.
Meeting between HM Coroner Dr Popper and legal representatives of persons
who died at the Hillsborough Disaster
At 2 pm on Tuesday, 6 March 1990, HM Coroner for Sheffield, Dr Popper,
held a private meeting in the Coroner's Court, Medico-Legal Centre,
Sheffield to discuss interim measures with interested parties.
Dr Popper explained that although the court-room was being used
a judicial process was not taking place, quite simply the room and the
layout was suitable for the numbers and business involved.
Dr Popper asked the various people present to identify themselves which
they did as follows
Mr Fraser, Solicitor for the Steering Committee, Liverpool
Solicitors.
He represents about 150 practices of which about 50 were
directly involved in litigation.
All told these practices represent
the families of 92 of the deceased.
Mr Gregory, Solicitor representing Sheffield City Council.
Mr Peter Doyle, Solicitor? representing Sheffield Wednesday Football
Club.
Mr Callaghan, Solicitor? representing Trent Regional Health Authority
and South Yorkshire Ambulance Service.
Catherine Thorpe, representing Eastwood and Partners.
Belinda Norcliffe, Legal Assistant, South Yorkshire Police.
Mr B Devonside and Mr Trevor Hicks, Hillsborough Support Group.
..........
(The man who came in late.
p<r
Details not obtained)
— O ST fcf-»»4 <
Also present were members of Sheffield City Council Social Services
Department.
Dr Popper asked if there were any relatives in the room who were not
represented by a solicitor
No-one indicated.
/Cont'd ....
ACC Jones sat on the right of Dr Popper and was introduced as the
"Coroner's Officer" for the purpose of the inquiry.
Dr Popper explained that the purpose of the meeting was to seek the best
way forward for the bereaved families bearing in mind that the inquiry was
nearly a year old and they had not received, in an official sense, clear
explanations of where their loved ones died, how they died (in a
pathological sense), what efforts were made to revive them and where they
were identified.
He explained that if the authorities could somehow hold
a "mini-inquest", it would provide an interim stage in the proceedings, so
that the healing process for the bereaved could be brought one step nearer
a conclusion and that this would be of enormous help to the relatives.
Dr Popper said that this proposal did not mean that the DPP had
informed him of any decision.
He reiterated this again and explained that
the DPP has not, indeed could not quite simply because, as yet he did not
have the papers and would not for some time to come. Because of this
prolonged phase of the inquiry he was proposing an interim step.
He explained that this present course of action was brought about by a
letter from Miss Steel who highlighted the advantages of allowing the
relatives an official explanation (albeit limited) of what had happened
without compromising the criminal inquiry that was taking place
simultaneously.
Dr Popper adumbrated three scenarios that would have to be followed if an
interim measure was not adopted.
They were:
1. If a prosecution for a major offence was commenced (such as
manslaughter) then the inquests would be adjourned in accordance with
Section 16 of the Coroners' Act and after the criminal prosecution it
would be open to the Coroner to resume the inquests. Regardless of the
Jury's verdict this was a practice not followed in his jurisdiction.
2. If the DPP declined to prosecute for whatever reason, but a private
prosecution was commenced, then the post trial circumstances described
in (1) above would also apply.
3. The DPP decides not to prosecute and no-one else does, then inquiries
would be completed in the normal way via an inquest with a jury.
/Cont'd
It was explained that whatever the case, these would be lengthy procedures
and so an interim solution had been sought.
The DPP had been consulted
and, subject to any comments made by the representative parties today, the
"mini-inquest" interim measure would seem to offer some relief to the
families.
The inquests would seek to establish:
a. How the person arrived at the stadium.
b. Where they were in the stadium.
c. When they died.
d. Cause of death.
The sequence of events at the "mini-inquest" could take the following form:
a.
Prior to the inquest the Coroner's officer would prepare a summary of
the case that was factual and non-adversarial.
b. After approval by the Coroner the summary would be offered to
representatives of the deceased for their comments.
c.
Subject to the approval of the deceaseds' representatives the summary
would be presented at the "mini-inquest" by a Summary Officer after
evidence - probably written - from the pathologist as to the cause of
death and injuries.
It was anticipated that Dr Forest and Professor
Usher would give general evidence covering most of the cases in the
first day or two of the "mini-inquests" so that their time at the
hearings was reduced to a reasonable level.
If possible eight cases
per day would be the objective of the interim inquiry.
Cases would not be taken in numerical or alphabetical order because
listing was seen to be a difficult problem in terms of minimising the
waiting time for the families involved. It was hoped, that where several
deaths related to the same family, these would be dealt with
together regardless of the order that the pathologist examined the
bodies.
The Coroner reserved the right to set the order of cases according to
the best interests of justice and with due regard for the feelings of
the bereaved.
/Cont'd ....
d.
Plans and "Ana-Kappa" diagrams would be available to the representatives
prior to the hearing but it was likely that these would be viewed at a
time and place suitable to the Coroner's officer and the
representatives.
e.
Witnesses may be called to assist the Coroner and the Jury, but
specifically no member of the South Yorkshire police force will be
called to give evidence.
f.
The use of video tapes or photographs would not be used as they have
already been seen by the families and their representatives.
g.
Transcripts of the hearings would be made available but they would not
be immediately transcribed, there will be delay, and there will be a
charge.
Dr Popper summarised his proposals to the representatives and families
by saying that he was asking their approval to hold a limited inquiry
taking evidence in a particular form that would not obstruct the DPP's
options.
He asked if there were any questions.
Mr Fraser asked when the summaries would be available?
Dr Popper said that
they would be sent out in a steady stream as and when they became available
to him.
It was anticipated that the first drafts would be available in
the very near future.
Mr Fraser asked Dr Popper to specify the time period covered by the summary
and was told that it was hoped that each report would span the period from
when the deceased left home to when he or she was identified in the
temporary mortuary.
In some cases it would be possible to extend that
time span.
Dr Popper was at pains to point out that the short inquests would not deal
with how or why each person died.
He took time to explain that the
hearing would not admit evidence of a controversial nature or which was
critical of any person or which would imperil the scope of action that
the DPP might want to take. He said that this was not a new approach to
such cases. There have been precedents set elsewhere.
/Cont'd
Dr Popper then asked for the views of all those present.
Mr Fraser
expressed "a warm feeling for the idea" and commended the Coroner on his
pragmatism and his empathy with the deceaseds' families.
present also indicated their approval for the proposal.
Other persons
There were no
objections made at all.
Dr Popper proposed that the "mini-inquests" begin at 10.30 am on Wednesday,
18 April and thereafter at 9.30 am.
Sittings would be from Monday to
Friday, there would be coffee breaks for the families and lunch would be
taken at about 1 pm resuming at 2 pm.
Early estimates tended to indicate
that this stage would be completed by the 4 May but a few days have been
set aside from the 21 May to deal with difficulties encountered in the
early hearings.
As far as scheduling the cases was concerned the Coroner proposed to give
provisional warnings.
Re-scheduling may be a major problem and so the
representatives were given notice that non-availability to attend the
hearing would need to be for an extremely persuasive reason simply because
the knock-on consequences for such a large operation may frustrate a great
deal of careful planning not only of the Coroner's arrangements but also
of the families involved.
The venue was proposed as the -Sheffield Medico-Legal Centre which would be
too small on the first day but once the initial rush of press interest has
subsided will be eminently suitable for the families. Arrangements were
in hand to ensure that the press were given as much access as was
reasonably possible in the circumstances and the question of the venue for
the first day would be considered further.
Mr Fraser asked the Coroner to curtail the activities of the national and
local press as some of their comments had caused a great deal of distress
to the bereaved.
Dr Popper said that he fully understood the problem but
the press would flout any requests he made and that it was probably the
best course of action to say nothing.
Mr Fraser queried the Coroner's view on representation stating that as far
as the solicitors of Liverpool were concerned he would represent them but
some families may want their own solicitor there on the day.
no problem with this.
/oont'd
Dr Popper saw
4
-
6
-
Mr Fraser thanked Dr Popper for the way he had proposed a sensible
modus-vivendi and in particular the way the officers from the West
Midlands Police had shown care and sympathy for the bereaved families.
Dr Popper thanked him for his kind comments.
Mr Callaghan queried whether attendance at the meeting today carried with
it an automatic right for audience at the "mini-inquests."
Dr .Popper said
it did.
Mr Peter Doyle expressed thanks to the Coroner and promised the full help
and support of the football club throughout the difficult times to come.
Dr Popper closed the meeting by sending Superintendent Starkey to see if
any member of the press required a briefing in the presence of all those
who had taken part in the meeting.
After returning from the foyer
Superintendent Starkey said that no member of the press were in attendance.
The meeting closed at 3.05 pm.
@ 0 7 4 2 726247
MEDICO LGL CNTER
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRANSMISSION OK
TRANSACTION #
0030
CONNECTION TEL
0213596735
G3
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
03/15 15:18
USAGE TIME
00 '38
PAGES
1
To:
For the attention of Hgt. Nick Tredgold. Nechells Police Station.
From:
Joan Taylor - Coroner's Secretary.
AVAILABILITY OF PATHOLOGISTS WHO M Y BE flAT.T/STO TO INQUEST. fffTT.T.STvranTTaTh
Professor S. Jones.
Free April 19*20, 23 and 24th.
Has some appointments on other dates but could cancel i.e., 30th April,
1st May, 2nd May, 3rd May, 4th May and 7th of May.
Professor J. Underwood.
Not available Wednesday afternoon 25th April and all
Thursday 26th of April but free the rest of the time.
Professor L. Henry.
Available all the time.
Dr. J. Shortland.
Not available on the 10th of May but O.K. before that.
Dr. Siva & Dr. Denmark.
Available except that Dr. Denmark is not available on the 20th of
April.
Dr. Siva and Dr. Denmark both not available on the 25th of April.
Dr. Slater.
Back from holiday on the 20th of April.
Abroad in Ireland
for a Court Case 26th of April but O.K. for the rest of the time.
Dr. J. Clarke.
Available for most of the time, but not on the 21st of April.
16th of August
SLP/JT.
VJH.TP.AED.
V.J. Hobion, 7*E«CtS|
Consultant in F&edl&tric Accident and Baorgency,
Liverpool Haaltii Authority,
Hoyal Liverpool Childrens Hospital,
Alder Hey,
Baton Boad,
.
Sear Doctor Robson,
Thank you for your letter of the 27th of July*
With regard to yeur second paragraph, X think strictly
speaking, this is sot quite correct. A report prepared
by one of the pathologists and submitted to the fublic
Inquiry had Z think been displayed in one of the libraries,
but as ter as Z know, this has now been withdrawn.
With regard to the pest aortea reports, I have now decided
to release these subject to certain safeguards as follows*a.
They have to be treated mi provisional and
subject to aM&dBsxit or alteration until
such tiae as they are given or produced in
evidence at the Inquest.
b.
They are to be used only ffcr the purpose of
bereavement counselling of the diceased*s
relatives, or for proper or legitiaate purposes
in connection with any legal proceedings in which
solicitors say be engaged.
0.
Subject to tiie above, they are to be kept
confidential until they ooae in to the public
doaain at the resuaed Inquest.
In fact, aost of the bereaved are now represented by solicitors,
aany of whoa have already requested post aortea reports and
copies have been sent to them.
To avoid unnecessary duplication, I would be grateful if
you would please let ae knows1.
Whejtoer you would be prepared to accept the
post aortea reports on the basis outlined above.
2.
In respect of which of the deceased you still
feel tiiat you require a copy.
With regard to j m s question regarding the position of Beter
Andrew Harrieon, X regret that I aa not in a position at the
89.
16th of Angast
pyggon t tla a t© assist 70a on tfeis q m ttiflo *
/
1 look forward to hwGring fern j w u
Tears slnooreljr,
3»lt»fopp9Tf
I J L O m t gi
LIVERPOOL HEALTH AUTHORITY
ROYAL LIVERPOOL CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
ALDER HEY
Eaton Road, Liverpool
L12 2AP
Telephone: 051-228 4811
Our Ref:
Dr. S. L. Popper,
H.M. Coroner,
Medico-Legal Centre,
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD,
S3 7ET.
WJR.TF.AED
Iftelephoning please ask for: 2261
27th July, 1989.
Dear Dr. Popper,
You will recall that I wrote to you in May asking for copies
of post mortem reports for those under the age of 18 years who
died in the Hillsborough disaster.
I have been told today by a parent that a summary of the post
mortem findings is now available in public libraries.
Can
you please give me any idea when vou will be able to send me
copies of the post mortem reports.
I have had a counselling session with the parents of Peter
Andrew Harrison, aged 15 years, of Finch Lane, Huyton, and
they are very keen to know where he was in the crowd.
If you
do have that information I would be grateful if you could
forward it to me.
Yours sincerely,
W. J. (e^ b s o n , F.R.C.S.
Consultant in Paediatric Accident and Emergency
PILE NOTE 2 5 . 7 . 8 9 . TELEPHONE CALL TO JOIN POTJI/TER, A3S53N & LEGAL
7M017 HE ACCOMMDMTION.____________________________________
1 b said he wasn't the right man, he was merely responsible for
ensuring that Council business could continue.
He would find
out who would be responsible for sorting out the accommodation
side and get them to ring me.
I told him that the Inquest
was planned to start on the 15th of January 1990 and might last
anything between 4 and 12 weeks.
FILE NOTE DATED 2A.7.RQ- TBKEPffQHl CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR S. JONES.
He had had Hr. Devonside on the phone and Hr. Spearett as well.
They had seen this and they wanted copy of p.m.reports.
I told
Professor Jones more or less what I had spoken with Hr. Devonside
about and that I asked him not to release the p.m. reports, but
that I would be dealing with this.
4.
Sheffield Health Authority
Royal Hallamshire Hospital
Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2JF
Department of Clinical Chemistry
Dr A. R. W. Forrest
Our ref
A R W F /B B
Telephone Sheffield 766222 (STD 0742)
Your ref
Date
B mshire
HOSPITAL
^ J u ly
1989
Dr S Popper
H M Coroner
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3
Dear Dr Popper
Hillsborough Disaster
Following my recent conversation with your officer concerning the samples
which were obtained at autopsy from those who died at Hillsborough, I write
to say that I have absolutely no objection whatsoever to these samples being
submitted to another laboratory for further analyses. However, interpretation
of the results may not be straight forward. The yellow capped plastic tubes
in which the samples were submitted to my laboratory are primarily intended
for the collection of samples for clinical blood glucose analysis. They are
perfectly adequate for the collection of samples for clinical blood alcohol
analysis. However several factors in their design do mean that the blood
alcohol concentration of samples placed within them does tend to drop rather
more rapidly than does the concentration of alcohol in samples placed into
the "RTA" tubes which are used when blood samples are collected in connection
with allegations of drink driving offences. These factors include the plastic
nature of the tube, the relatively large ratio of dead space to sample and the
push fit cap. Although the samples have been kept sealed and refrigerated
since their first analysis, it is likely that there would be a significant negative
bias if they were to be now reanalysed purely because of the nature of the tube
in which the samples were collected.
I intend no criticism of any party in drawing this matter to your attention.
In fact there are many good reasons for using the tubes of this type in a "mass
casualty" situation. They are readily to hand and sample collection and manipulation
is more easily carried out with such tubes than is the case when using "RTA" vial.
If you wish any further information on this aspect of the investigation I would
be very happy to help you.
Yours sincerely
A R W FORREST
Consultant Chemical Pathologist
R.H.H. 173
FILE NOTE BATED 2A.7.89. TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH DICK FOSTER.
He had had a call froa the Home Office regarding this report which had
been published in Liverpool. He wanted to know what ay view was.
I said that if I had had any say in the natter, I would have preferred
it not to have been published, or at least if I had realised that they
were going to publish it, I would have tried to ensure that the
p.m. reports had gone out first.
He wanted to know whether I
could order it to be withdrawn.
I said that I really didn't think
that I had that authority, it m s after all Lord Justice Taylor's
Inquiry and it was up to him to decide whether it should be published
or not.
I suggested that he might like to have a word with Andrew
Collins and point out what was happening and find out whether there
was any possibility for it to be withdrawn.
I said that if Mr. Collins
wanted to know what ay view on the matter was, then it was that I
would prefer that it was withdrawn from public circulation at the
moment.
22nd June
SLP/JT.
Mr. R. Michie,
Assistant Director of Health & Consumer Services,
Town Hall Chambers,
Barkers Pool,
Sheffield.
Dear Roger,
1 enclose a copy of a letter dated the 19th of June
which I have received from Professor J.3.P. Jones gixing
me details of the mortuary technician and Personal Secretary.
I trust you will deal with this.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
IMyjjaaawfji,
89.
891169
N o t t i n g h a m *t K S f H I
D e p t , o f Pa t h o l o g y
C it y H o s p i t a l
P r o f e s s o r J .s .P .J o n e s
Ex t . 2 3 8 3
V' 1 1
t
n u s n l f l L
H ucknall Road
. 'JSPJ/VGB
N o ttin g h a m
.
NG5
1PB
19th June 1989
Dr S L Popper
H M Coroner
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
Dear Stefan
i
Thank you for your letter of the 9th June. The mortuary technician
who attended was:
Mr John W Mulligan
Manager - Mortuary Services
Department of Pathology
Queens Medical Centre
Nottingham
i
National Insurance No. YS 72 85 02 D
Mg secretary is:
Mrs Valerie Bolton
Personal Secretary to Professor JSP Jones
City Hospital, Nottingham
National Insurance
Yours sincerely
No.
ZH 81 09 97B
SLP/JT
Mr. H* MIchie,
Health & CtonmmHwrr Services,
Town Hall Chambers,
Barkers Pool,
Sheffield.
Dear Roger,
I enolose a photocopy of Professor Underwood*s letter of the
16th of June, which give* you the information you need
in connection with these three technicians.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
Maflmmifft
r
x
/
f i
21st June
SLP/JT,
JCEU/BB,
Professor J.G.E. Underwood,
Dept of Pathology,
IJjjraUHiversity of Sheffield Medical School,
Beech Hill Hoad,
s h s * P ?ffit
Dear Professor Underwood,
Rel HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER.
Thank you for your letter of the 16th of June giving me
the names, addresses and National Insurance Surabers of
Arthur Birch, J©hn Birch and Ian Illingsworth*
Yours sincerely,
S.L,Popper,
Mifiarwfff»
89.
The University of Sheffield Medical School
Beech Hill Road
Joseph Hunter Professor of Pathology
Professor J C E Underwood, MD, FRCPath
Sheffield S10 2RX
Tel: Sheffield 766222
STD code: 0742
JCEU/BB
Dr. S. Popper,
HM Coroner,
Watery Street,
Sheffield S3 7ET
16 June 1989
Dear Dr. Popper,
Thank you for your letter of 9th June.
The names, addresses and N.I. numbers of the three morticians
are as follows
Arthur Birch
Nat.Ins.No.
John Birch,
Nat.Ins.No.
Ian Illingsworth
Nat.Ins.No.
Yours sincerely,
^---------------J.C.E. Underwood
flh>
(Lv*
OFFICE OF H.M. CORONER FOR
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
(W est D istrict)
w
<
^
MEDICO-LEGAL CENTRE,
WATERY STREET,
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
f>j) X / f ^
\
STEFAN L PO PPER . ItLB.I., B.MED.SCi., B.M., B.S., M R.C & ? \
C O R O N B f'
Telephone: SHEFFIELD (0742) 738721
l6th June
SLP/JT.
0169G/KRS.
Dr. J.C. Clark,
Senior Lecturer in Forensic Medicine,
Department of Forensic Medicine
and Science,
The University,
GLASGOW G12 8Q.Q.
Dear Dr. Clark,
Re: GARY PHILIP JOHES (deceased) .
/
Thank you very much for your helpful letter of the 14th of June.
I very much appreciate the trouble you have taken to clarify
this for me.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H.M.Coroner.
19 ,8 ?.*
16th June
SLP/JT.
0169G/KRS.
Dr. J.C. Clark,
Senior Lecturer in Forensio Medicine,
Department of Tbrensle Medicine
and Science,
The University,
GLASGOW Q12 80a.
Dear Dr. Clark,
Ml, GAjg pHILIP JOHES (deceaaedh
Thank yon very much for your helpful letter of the 14th of June,
I very much appreciate the trouble you have taken to clarify
this for me.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H+M.Coroner.
89.
D epartm ent
M
of
e d ic in e a n d
* T e l:
T h e U n iv e r s it y
F o r e n s ic
G lasgow G 12 8Q Q
S c ie n c e
041-339 8855
041-330 4574
D i r e c t A c c e s s L in e :
Reference: 0169G/KRS
14th June. 1989
Dr. Stefan Popper.
H.M. Coroner,
South Yorkshire (West District).
Medico-Legal Centre.
Watery Street.
Sheffield.
S3 7 E T .
Dear Dr. Popper.
Re: Death of Gary Philip Jones
Died at Hillsborough Stadium on 15/4/89
• »
Thank you for your
the Hillsborough disaster.
letter concerning this young man who died
in
As you will see from my post mortem report, in addition to
injuries received in the crush, there was clear evidence that Gary had
also received some form of medical treatment following it. in that there
was a "drip" in his right arm. other medical needle marks, and ECG pads
on his chest.
The absence of any reaction or haemorrhage associated
with these however, indicate that he was dead or dying when the treatment
was administered and certainly did not live for any time afterwards.
It
is thus very likely that his cousin is correct and that Gary was ir^fact
taken into an ambulance or to at least some medical area.
•
This does not however, alter the cause of death.
He showed
definite signs of hischest having been crushed and terminally would
appear to have inhaled vomit and died, the vomiting probably stimulated
by the effects of the crushing.
This sequence of events would not be
inconsistent with
him having managed to escape from the crowd and
staggered a few steps before dying.
I
hope
these
observations
can
assist
family.
Yours sincerely
John C. Clark.
M.B..Ch.B..M.R.C.Path..
Senior Lecturer in Forensic Medicine
The University of Glasgow.
you
and
reassure
Gary's
15th June
SLP/JT.
Mr. D. Bruranell,
Aegistant Treasury Solicitor,
Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Inquixy,
Town Hall,
Sheffield. SI 2HH.
Bear Mr. Brummell,
Rer Release of Post Mortem Reports.
Thank you for your lettir of the 7th of June,
up with the Steering Committee,
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
I cm taking this
*
15th June
SLP/JT.
Your R efi Iffl/iR B /H illsborough.
Mr. M. Hunqphreys,
Brian Thompson & Partners,
Solicitors,
Richmond House,
Romford Place,
Xdrerpool. L3 98W.
Dear Mr. Hianphries,
I refer to your letter of the 31st of May and our telephone
conversation of the 13th of June.
You are of course quite correct that there is g o in g to be
a considerable length of tiae before I am in a position
to renne the full Inquests.
I aa very conscious of the fact that disclosure of the post
aortem reports is anxiously awaited by many of the bereaved,
and I note also that they Bay be needed in connection with
other proceedings.
It is a y noraal practice not to release post morteas reports
until the Inquest. I am however considering whether in the
particular ciroiaastanoes of these oases, I ought to depart
froa my noraal practice.
Zf I were to decide to release the post aortea reports it would
have to be on the basis that the doeuaents are being released
as provisional, subject to aaendment or alteration, up to the
tiae when they are given or produced in evidence at the Inquest.
Xt would also have to be on the understanding that they are
kept oonfidential, and only used for proper legitimate purposes,
sueh as legal negotiations and at direct counselling, bereavsaent
counselling of aeabers of the deceased families. This latter
aspeot eould probably be better done by the faaily*s G.P*s
and/or Pediatric or Oaaualty Departments.
V# have a fu rth e r problea in th a t I hava been forwarded a oopy
o f a schedule sent bgr Mrs. S teal (who X believe is w ir iia r o f
tha Steering OoMdttaa) i M A lis ts a substantial xxuaber of the
daoeeae* who apparently are r epresented by a o lio ito ra .
X have gone through th is sohedttlo , and have aarked tilth a cross
those eases of whloh we are snare. - '
Tou D ill see th a t th is is a re la tiv e ly s a s ll proportion o f people ,
and X th in k th a t beffacirX w ill be propw ad to
post ao rtea
reports to ftra s o f M U e ite ra 9 i t would be necessary fo r thea
to ooae, so to speak, on the record w ith me.
©oat#d .
15th June
1
.
■ ■ ».* ,fij
■'
represents a v m a b m t '» £ tfc» %«w»I i m U y , tJiii-i it -iiM
ta aot ■ •
necessarily follow that they also 3?@pi»i*«a»t tl*»«i la e«uie®t£«a
•with tli# ln.Qti#iits 1*1 i s p recisely because o f th is that .1
the Im gm siM i,
I m i will als© aot@ fcoa the copy schedule that against Isa
ftiiii
is In fe,ct the- fir® lixi hiwu teen la eoxxeepondense^kth ma
and it Is only fair to add that in the t i a M m i a / M i S l f S l l m m m M 'm s m m have sent to.mst lim Glover (feeeased) does not appease
as I30BI00I10 iAm i they represent*
your schedule with
m g im tl to fliii,
'
I *î|)lain,ed to you that there were various- other problems which
have"still got to be resolved with regard to^the post mortem
•
reports, but-I am "very conscious of-your wishe
able to" find a way.o f 'complying with them 1- will certainly
sympathetically consider doing so,
.
.
1 think the first thing that needs- to tie done however is to
sort out who is representing who.
I look forward to hearing from you and/or the individual solicitors,
in due -course,
Yours-sincerely,
Popper,
H.M. Coroner.
VICTIMS 04 THE HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER
AT 5TH JttNE 1989
N.B,
Information (Re victims) Compiled originally by L i v e ^ o d i fichb and
adjusted when a< curate information was received in by'the
Solicitors acti; 5f for bereaved families
*
NDERSON
1 John
Solicitor;
Mac : & Jones H^yton 480 7000
Acting for: Mr.s Anderson <îfe)
3HCR0FT
2 Colin M
^Solicitor:
Wil .iam H Lili & Co. Lymm 092575 3l70/56§8
Mrs Ashcraft (Parents)
Acting for: Mr
LSFIH&LL
3 James
Solicitor:
Her :y Cross & Sons Prescot 426 5147
Acting for: Mr Tames Aspinall (Father)
4 Simon
SELL
Solicitor:
W a J I & Co Crosby 928 6544
Acting for: No Jetails
1
5 Gerard
^Solicitor:
Naj thans Bresson
^ A c t i n g for; No Retails
BENNETT
6 Barry S
Solicitor:
Acting for:
also***
Solicitor:
Acting for:
Go dsmiths Liverpool 227 2552
Pa' ricia Dove£ as next of friend of KerrJ
Wi liams Elsby & Co. Bootle,
Th family ofithe deceased
agents for w n S t Brooks
BENSON
7 David J
Solicitor:
A c t i n g for:
Bennett
in Watson Warrington 0925 571212
S Mrs Benspn (Parents)
I
an L the girlfriend, of the deceased on be }alf‘ of
th d r child
Co
Mr
1
8 Peter
S)
1 XRKETT
Solicitor:
Bel; Lamb & Johnson Runcorn
0928 716969 .
Acting for: Mr
Mrs Birkei^t (Parents)
!
also ***
I
Solicitor: Silv< rman Liverrjiore Liverpool 227 1871
Acting for: No < etails N.B, info as "P A Barkatt,dacd*
9 Paul D
i
■RADY
Solicitor:
Ya.f e Jackson f Ostrin Liverpool 236 5555j
Acting- for: Mr ! Brady
;
10 Carl
kOWN
Solicitor;
Wid .ows
Leigh 0942 673311
Acting for; Mr
"
“ Bro'm
“
Mrs
T
11 David
H.OWN
I
Solicitor:
Jam is James & katch Wrexham 0978 261026
Acting for: Mr Javld Stanley Brown (Father)
I
12 Henry T
ptJBKE
Solicitor;
Can er Levin &’ Berg Kirkby
Acting for: Mr •C Burke
13 Paul
54 6 4562
T
CARLISLE
Solicitor:
Doc Ley & Co, Liverpool 270 2095
Acting for: No Retails
^^ 1 4 Raymond
:h a p m a n
I
Thom
Solicitor:
Bri in Thompsorf
& Partners
Acting for: No illetails
et-.s-i 1s
]
15 Joseph
:l a r k
Solicitor:
Ma<
& Jones
Acting for: Nofietails
16 Paul
Solicitor:
A c t i n g for:
T ^ T
'Liverpool 236 8 98 9
ICLARKE
Si
■erman Livermore Liverpool 227
M r & Mrs Clarke (Parents)
1371
T
IOLLXNS
17 G a r y
Solicitor:
Woolwich L&ndej: & Savage Bootle 933 3335
Acting for: No Sletails
%
OPOC
18 Steven
Solicitor:
Sil rerman Livermore Liverpool 227 1871
j
NIAMEY
19 James
Solicitor:
D E Roberts & Co. Bromborough L62 7HH
Acting for: J E Delaney (J):)
20 Christopher
JSVONSIDE
Solicitor:
D E fillips & Co. Bootle
riTZSlMMON^
21 Vincent
Solicitor:
Acting for:
also***
Solicitor:
Acting for:
922 5525
Ric o y & Co.
No details
însford
0606 558825
Wh :tles Manchester 061 228 2061
Ma: jorie Wild (common law wife)
22 Barry
SLOVSR
Solicitor:
Do< ley & Co. ijiverpool 270 2095
Acting for: No details
\
23 lan
3LOVER
Solicitor:
Si; verman Livermore Liverpool
Acting for: Nofdetails
X
227 1871
U 'OX&n*<£>£>Iis*l
24 Derrick G
GODWIN
Solicitor:
Le ghton Davi^ Witney 0993 779977
Acting for: Mr A Mrs Godwin (Parents)
25 Roy
HAMILTON
Solicitor:
Ke nan Gribbl^ Crosby 9298 8686
Acting for MrS Wendy Hamilton (Wife)
L^\
i
{•____ ;______
26 P h i l i p
AMMOND
Solicitor:
Bar1 lett & Son
Acting for: No etails
27 Eric
Old Swan
228 7730
ANKIN
Solicitor:
Lee Lloyd Whitley Liverpool
Mr Hankin
Acting for: Mrs Hankin (Wire)
Solicitor:
Max pell Entwisile & Byrne Maghull
Acting for; No .etails
28 Peter
480 3666
&ARRIS0N
Solicitor:
Sil rerman Livermore
Acting for: no ietails
■
30 Paul
526 7 lfl
ARRISON
Solicitor:
Mac :rell & Thojnas Page Moss
Acting for: Mr i Mrs Harrijson (Parents)
29 Stephen F
\
227 7730
(Father)
Liverpool 227 1871
Se w i t s o n
Solicitor:
Coj les Crosby^ 931 2841
Acting for: Mr * Mrs Hewit?son (Parents)
31 Carl
iSWITT
Solicitor:
No details b^t a call has been received fjhrdA a Hick
_______
Carter Tel
No. 0533 812413 on behalf of his siste t M & M v i t t O f
109 Serverna R< ad OADBY Leicestershire who lost both % e r sons at
Hillsborough (i ea below Nicolas) Mr Hewitt rang b a c k % o iay that
they may conta< fc their ow4 solicitor.
1
32 Nicholas
PEWITT
SEE ABOVE
Solcitor;
33 Sarah
HICKS
Solicitor:
Si verman Livermore
Acting for: Ndidetails
34 Victoria
Solicitor:
A c t i n g for;
Liverpool
227 1871*
Liverpool
227 18711
HICKS
Si ,verman Livermore
No '
‘details
ORU
35 G o r d o n
Solicitor:
Acting for
Sil “erman Livermore
No details
Liverpool
227 1871
lORROCKS
3 6 Arthur
Fanlhaw Porter1 & Hazelhurst
Solicitor:
Acting for: MrsjS Horrocks*
New Ferry
6|4 7990
~..L
HOWARD
37 Thomas
Solicitor:
Acting for;
also***
Solicitor:
Acting for:
Silverman Live’
b more
No etails
Liverpool
227 1871 ¥
Bel . Lamb & Johnson Runcorn 716969
Mrs Howard (Ex; wife)
IOWARD (Age' 1 4 )Masseyfield Rd Brook Va "e B!unco£n
Thomas A
Solicitor:
Bel . Lamb
iiamc &
ci Johnson
uwviiowii Runcorn 716969
Howard
(Mother)
Acting for: Mrsf
IUGHES
y ( 39 EriC
)ie Collinjs UppinghamSolicitor;
Acting for: M r s Hughes (Wijfe)
'HNSTONE
40 Alan
Solicitor;
Acting for; No
•erman Live'rmore
ietails
^ 1 Gary
TONES
Liverpool
227 1871
Solicitor:
Mo i scroft Daws'on & Garnett Liverpool
Acting for: No ietails
42 Richard
2 3 ^ 8871
TONES
Solicitor;
Da .s Wallis
Acting for; No iietalls
’Liverpool
236 1611
Solicitor:
B r & n Thompson & Partners Liv®rP°°l
Ig7!*
Acting for: No Retails N.ri. awaiting confirmation 17 .J.as
4 3 Nicholas
Solicitor:
A c t i n g for:
JOYNES
Le<s Lloyd Whitley Liverpool
M r & M r s J o y n a s (parents)
227
2460
T
KELLY
4 4. A n t h o n y
061 962 8157
Solicitor:
Ri<ftiard Dawsori & Co.
Acting for: Mr^, Simmons (Mother)
45 Carl
Solicitor:
Do<fl.ey & Co. Liverpool 270 2095
Acting for; No letails
;
4 6 David
M&TH2R
D, Pictdn Road Liverpool
Solicitor;
E.
47 Brian
733 3385
dATHEWS
Solicitor;
Doc Ley & Co. Kirkby 548 911
Acting for: Mr.; M Mathews :(Wife)
48 Francis
toALlSTER
no
details
Solicitor:
Bai :lett & Son Old Swan 227 3391
Acting for; Mr I Mrs McAlister (Parents)
4 9 Alan
flcGLONE
Solicitor:
Car ;er Levin & Berg
4ICOL
50 Lee
Kirkby
546 4562
Aged 14 n o details
Solicitor;
Wa; L & Co. Crosby
928 6544
Acting for: Mrs Pat Nicol (Mother)
51 Stephen
y NEILL
Solicitor:
Jot i Callaghan & Co Page Moss
Acting for; The O'Neill fajnily
><
52 William
»EMBERTON
Solicitor;
Si\ srman Livermore
Acting for: No Jet ails
Liverpool
227 1871
/erman Livermore Liverpool
Retails
227 1871
M mmer
53 Carl
Solicitor:
A c t i n g for:
480 4555
Si
No
T
54 David
SIMMER
Solicitor;
Briyhouse Jonds Ormskirk
Acting for; Lir 3a Mary Rirfmer (Wife)
Pai. L David Rinmer (Son)
Kat a Elizabeth Rimmer (Daughter)
55 Graham
ROBERTS
i‘
Solicitor:
Pei py Hughes & Roberts
;■
56 Stephen
►
Chester
0244 3 1 0 4 6
ROBINSON
t.
“
Solicitor:
;
57 Colin
C05 :ies
Crosby
3EFTON
Solicitor:
Cai er Levin
Acting for; No ljetails
58 Inger
931 2841
Berg
Skelmersdale
0695
S468
SHAH
Solicitor; BaffLeys Shaw £ Gillett London 01 837 545
Acting for: Mifc R Shah (Age 17) Daniel Shah (Age 13 )J
59 Paula A
SMITH
Solicitor:
Caj lan Goodmari & Coote Townsend Lane Off She 256 0&77
4. lJ (Parents)
, -V
«
Acting for: I 4r *l-& Mrs ff.~-l
Smith
60 Adam
3&EARRITT
Solicitor: Si verman Livermore
Acting for; NO details
61 Philip
227 1871
STEELE
Solicitor:
Co; ties Crosby
62 David
Liverpool
931 2841
Jh o m a s
Solicitor: La; ton 4
Acting for; Ms Jones
Mr s Mrs
Mr & Mrs
t n i-i
Co. Liverpool 236 9475
(Fiancee)
Thomas (Parents)
Knowles (Sister & Brother-in-La'
63 Patrick
1 50MFS0N
Solicitor:
S L l \ srman Liveiinore
Acting for: No cstails
;
64 Peter
Liverpool
227 1871
I
OMPSON
r
Roberts Ncjrth Kirk Liverpool 227 418J
Acting for: No letails
1
65 Stuart P
HOMPSON
Solicitor;
Pau Watson & Co Southport
Acting for: No .etails
66 Peter
N.B, PHONff
'OOTLB
Solicitor;
Silferman Livermore
Acting for: Ho Retails
Liverpool
227 1971 I
I
67 Christopher |!RAYNOR
Solicitor:
Do<Aey & Co. Liverpool 270 2095
68 Martin
CRAYNCR
Solicitor:
Doc ley & Co. Liverpool 270 2095
69 Kevin
nrRELL
Solicitor:
Da1 id M a t h e w s '& Co
70 Ian
Liverpool
236 5599
WHELAN
Solicitor:
Co in Watson £ Co Warrington 0925 571212.:
Acting for: No [details.
71 Graham J
WRIGHT
Solicitor:
He ry Cross & Sons Prescot
Acting for : Gigl'ge F Wright
426 5147
j
treasury solicitor
HILLSBOROUGH STADIUM DISASTER INQUIRY
TOWN HALL
SHEFFIELD
SI 2HH
Telephone 0742-736903/736905
FAX
0742-736900
7th June, 1989
Miss E. M. Steel,
Hillsborough Steering Caimittee,
c/o Castle Chambers,
Cook Street,
LIVERPOOL,
L2 9SH.
Dear Miss Steel,
pTrr.TTA.'yff OF POST-MORTEM REPORTS
Thank you for your faxed letter of 6th June.
Snbiect to the views of the Coroner, I do not myself see any objection to
the post-mortem reports being released to the bereaved families on a provisional
basis in the manner that you suggest.
I have accordingly passed your request on to the Coroner, and he will no
doubt be in touch with you direct.
Yours sincerely,
D. Brummell
Assistant Treasury Solicitor
'f*
i
V
9th June
'
'
'
StP/JT.
Professor J.C.E. Underwood,
Department of Pathology#
Hoyal Hallaaahir® Hospital,
Glossop Hoad,
Sheffield.
Dear Professor TInderwod,
HILLSBOROTOH EPSASTER ^
You w r y kindly let me have the naaes of the three morticians
who attended at the Medioo Legal Centre and assisted with th®
poet morterns. I h a w been asked if I oould please have th»ir
fall names and addressee, so that appropriate cheques can
be sent to them.
I think it might be helpful if you oould also ftaft
their Rational Insurance Somber. I am sorry to have to trouble
you with this, but I would be grateful if you oould please
let me have this as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H.M. Coroner.
,
89
SLP/JT.
Professor J.S.P. Jenes,
Department of Pathology,
City Hospital,
Hucknall Road,
Dear Stephen,
Bft..KILLSBQBPPGH
'
I would be most grateful if you could please let ae have
the full naae and address of the mortioian who attended (I
think it was Hr, Williaas) as well as the naae and address of
your secretary. It would also be helpful if it were possible
to have their National Insurance numbers.
I look forward to receiving this as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
M u S pxmau
SLP/JS.
Hr* J. Clark,
Department of Forensic Medieine,
University of Glasgow,
GLASGOW. G12 6Q.Q.
Boar Hr. Clark,
Rei GARY PHILIP BONES - Ho.86.
I enclose a oopy of a letter tra m Moreoroft Dawson & Garnetts,
the third paragraph of whioh is very interesting.
We have not yet established whether the identification aentioned
to that paragraph is acourate (sometimes people aake mistakes
when looking at videos) but I would be grateful if you oould
pleiee let me know whether, in the light of this and on the
assumption that it were correct, you would wish to
any
amendment to your post mortem conclusions or the short causes
of death.
Yours sinoerely,
S.L,Popper,
B.M.Coroner.
p*
HILLSBOROUGH
STEERING
1
COMMITTEE
c/o CastCe Chambers, Cook^StTect, Liverpoo(L2 9 S 0 i ' D X 14100
Vet: 051 2 5 5 0 6 2 8 Jo*: 051 2 3 6 0047
**
S L Popper,
H M C o ron e r for South Y o r k s h ir e D i s t r i c t ,
M ed ico -L eg al C en tre ,
W atery S t r e e t ,
S h e f f ie l d ,
S3 7ET.
M H/ARD/H illsborough
31st May, 1989.
D ear S ir ,
I am a member of th e H ills b o r o u g h S te e r in g Committee set up
u n d e r th e a u s p i c e s of t h e L iv e rp o o l Law Society to d e a l w ith common
m a t t e r s a r i s i n g from t h i s t r a g e d y in r e l a t i o n to l e g a l c a s e s .
C l e a r l y , it is g o in g to be some time b e fo re f u l l I n q u e s t s t a k e
p l a c e in t h i s m a t t e r .
In
th e m e a n tim e , my c o l l e a g u e s a n d I a r e
a n x i o u s to p ro c e ed w ith n e g o t i a t i o n s a n d if n e c e s s a r y w ith p r o c e e d i n g s
a g a in st various p a rtie s.
In o r d e r to do t h a t it w o u ld be v e r y
h e l p f u l if th e i n d i v i d u a l s o l i c i t o r s i n v o l v e d in th e s e c a s e s c o u ld h a v e
a c c e s s to th e p o st mortem r e p o r t s p r i o r to th e I n q u e s t t a k i n g p l a c e .
I s h o u ld be g r a t e f u l if you c o u ld le t me know y o u r v ie w s on
th is m atter and
w h e t h e r or not you w ill r e q u i r e a s i g n e d c o n s e n t from
th e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of th e e s t a t e .
I look f o r w a r d to h e a r i n g from you a n d I s h o u l d be g r a t e f u l
you w o u ld a d d r e s s a n y r e p l y to me, c a r e of B r i a n Thompson a n d
P a r t n e r s , S o li c i t o r s , Richmond House, Rumford P l a c e , L i v e r p o o l , L3
9SW.
Ynnrg faithfully
/
p . p . MR MICHAEL HUMPHREYS.
BRIAN THOMHDN AND PARTNERS.
ARD.
if
31st May
SLP/JT,
D.B. w n aai,
for The Treasury Solioitor,
Hillsborough Stadium Disaster Inquiry,
Town Hall,
Sheffield. SI 2HH.
Bear Mr. Edmonds,
Thank you for your letter of the 26th of May. She question
of releasing the post mortem reports was raised lagr aw earlier
in May, and at that time it was felt that this would perhaps
not be a wise thing to do at that atage.
I note from your letter that Counsel to the Inquiry seems to
either take a different view or to have changed hia mind
on the subject at the moment.
With regard to the question of the release, 1 would not
be particularly happy if they were released in the manner
in which you have suggested.
I feel that the question of the medical cause of death falls
vary directly within the aabit of the Inquest and if any
post mortem reports are to be released, then 1 think this
should be done by me, as 1 wish to retain control of the
information which is being disseminated.
Mr understanding is that Counsel representing the bereaved
ia not la fact instructed on behalf of all the deceased
(soae of the families as far as I aa aware have not yet
instrueted solid tore).
In respect of these, I do not think it would be right that
the post aortea report should be released to Counsel.
1 should also add that I aa being approached by various
solicitors as well as others for the release of the post
Bw a w HI 3SBp63PwB#
Whilst it is not ny normal practice to release post aortea reports
until the Inquest, 1 concede that in this particular situation
such release aight be of help and benefit to the bereaved families
and I aa therefore not implacably opposed to this in principle.
Bewevar, should the doouaents be released it would have to be on
the underataading that they m a t bo treated aa provisional, and
subject to aaendaent or alteration until such time as they are
femaally introduced aa evidence at the Inquiaition.
I think It would be boat if Counsel t a t the bereaved, either
directly” or throat yourselfes or his instructing solicitors would
lot aa have a note of who ho representa and if it worn possible,
& e tunas of hia inatxuoting solioitora.
I would then consider
M s requeat aa a g f wifratloallr aa 1 oould*
Toura sincerely,
S.t*Iopper,
TREASURY SOLICITOR
HILLSBOROUGH STADIUM DISASTER INQUIRY
TOWN HALL
SHEFFIELD
SI 2HH
Telephone 0742-736903/736905
FAX
0742-736900
26th May, 1989
Dr. S. Popper,
H.M. Coroner,
Watery Street,
Sheffield,
S3 7ET.
Dear Sir,
Counsel to the Inquiry has received a request from Counsel representing
the bereaved and injured to be provided with the post-mortem examination
reports. Counsel is minded to grant the request and seeks confirmation
that you have no objection.
Yours faithfully,
D. B. EDMONDS
for The Treasury Solicitor
^
*
%
24th May
S1S/JT.
NHM/IES.
Neil 1, Horten,
Director of Btnrironaental Health,
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council,
Thorn Bank*
58 Koorgate Bead,
^
Dear Ite, Morton,
Thank you for y m e letter of the £th of May.
Z have paeced a oopy of your lattov with it»e enclosure to ShofflelA
City Council, asftdl would expeot that Z will be in a position to
co«nmioate with j m farther directly, m* alternatively they say
get in touoh with yon,
May * take this opportunity of saying that I -very much
tha fact that your aortioian waa ao willing to give up
of hia tlaa to aaaiat Ur, Slater in tha perfoxaanoe of
done on the Hillsborough dead. I am sure that it aad*
difference to tha w m bw e of peat nortews which wo were
complete.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Bopper,
H.M.Coronar.
appreciated
such a lot
poat aortaaa
a big
able to
W.
ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL
mjd
IMeil H. Morton, F.I.E.H., M.R.S.H., M.Inst. S.W., M.R.I.P.H.H., M.I.S.P.P.
Director of Environmental Health
Thorn Bank, 3 8 Moorgate Road,
Rotherham, S 6 0 2BU.
Fax Nos. (0 7 0 9 ) 3 6 7 5 1 2 & 5 6 0 3 5 5
Telecom Gold - L M X 9 2 6 & TSL 0 7 8
My reference:
Your reference:
NHM/IES
Telephone:
Rotherham
373731
Extension:
3100
Please contact:
Neil H. Morton
May 9, 1989
Dr. S.L. Popper,
The Coroner of South Yorkshire,
Medio-Legal Centre,
Watery Street,
Sheffield,
S2 7ET
Dear Dr. Popper,
Please find enclosed an account for the services of the Morticians involved
in the Hillsborough Disaster.
It is appreciated that this sad event is unlikely to recur and whilst
charges are being made, they have been deliberately kept to an absolute
minimum.
You will note that they are on a cost only basis without the
addition of any administrative charges.
I am pleased we were able to be of service and anticipate that co-operation
of this kind will always exist between us.
Nfiil Hi Morton,
Director of Environmental Health
Please address letters impersonally to the Director of Environmental Health
22afl May
SLP/JT.
Nr. B. Kiohie,
Assistant Mreotor,
Health & Comroaar Services,
Town Hall Chaahers,
Barkers Poolf
Sear B opci
X enclose a copy of a letter ftroa Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council together with m invoice in respect of Mr. Williams.
In a sense, events h a m overtaken us as far ae they are ooneerned,
tat ay feeling is that if tl» mount which we would h a m allowed
would have been greater than this, then this should ha negotiated/
agreed with
Metropolitan Borough of Rothexhaa.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.P0pper,
E A fta a a ig .
I ,
J , o / ' S / U 1*12'7 l*S*t tb- V*
r-
—
89.
"Sow**
^ c c ^ s cvn i-o
O
VO WiC^-'b v~cX
Q.O££.s\itE?
Vk ££? i C £M—
vooôr-eo
OKi
H o S ? v'C <\ L-
‘bov<iC>CV-\ ^
<g<^
C t m ^ t -
to
12th M a y 1989
SLP/PAD
Mr. D. Purchon,
Director of Environmental Health,
Town Hall Chambers,
Barkers Pool,
Sheffield.
Dear David,
Re; HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER
You will recollect that I have already spoken to you about payments
to pathologists and others arising out of the disaster at Hillsborough
on 15th April.
You will recollect that by virtue of an extraordinary effort from
everyone involved we were able to carry out seventy post mortems on
Sunday 16th April and the balance of the cases were completed on
Monday 17th April.
Without detracting in any way from the tremendous effort which was put
in by the staff of the Medico-Legal Centre it is undoubtably true that
it Would not have been possible to achieve this result without the very
willing assistance and help from pathologists, several of whom brought
their own teams in order to increase our capacity.
It is also true that if the hospitals had not agreed to take our routine
cases and deal with them it would have made things exceedingly difficult.
No charge has as yet been made and it would be difficult if not
impossible to resist it.
When I was first informed of this incident I thought that probably post
mortems should be undertaken by forensic pathologists and indeed a
large number of the cases were dealt with by these.
As you know in cases of special difficulty (which for all practical
purposes includes all forensic cases) a special post mortem fee is
paid of £130.10 as opposed to the standard fee of £46.50.
I have carefully considered what would be the appropriate rate in this
case and I feel that probably it is not justified to clasify all the
cases as forensic, on the other hand I think it would be proper to
recognise the tremendous effort as well as the stress and distress
which dealing with so many young people undoubtably was.
12th M a y
1989
(2)
Mr. D. Purchon
1.
I therefore would like to recommend that in this particular case
we should remunerate the pathologists by paying the standard fee of
£46.50 plus a supplement per case so as to bring the total remuneration
in each case to £65.00.
You will see that this is in fact 50% or so
of the forensic pathological charge.
I would be grateful if you could please obtain confirmation that the
Council will in these exceptional circumstances agree this special
payment.
I have already mentioned that several of the pathologists brought
their own teams, in particular the following mortuary staff came:
Professor Stephen Jones brought his own mortician and Mr. Mullingan
was present for 12 hours on Sunday.
The Royal Hallamshire Hospital morticians attended, they were Messers
Arthur Birch, Mr. John Birch and Mr. Ian Illingsworth. They attended
for 7 hours.
Dr. Slater was accompanied by Mr. Roy Williams who was present on
Sunday and on Monday for a total of 13 hours.
2.
These mortuary staff need to be appropriately
remunerated.
There are two further matters.
Professor Stephen Jones was accompanied by his secretary who presumably
took notes directly.
Other pathologists as far as I know used dictating
machines and no doubt their secretaries had to work very hard to get the
work typed up but they weren't present on the day.
3.
You may feel that some financial recognition for the presence of
Professor Jones' secretary on 16th April 1989 should be made.
Incidently I understand from Dr. Slater that he is proposing to fund out
of his fees the expenses for the heavy secretarial duties performed for
him on this particular occasion.
I would on the whole be reluctant to
recommend that we should reimburse secretarial costs away from the MedicoLegal Centre.
4.
Finally there is the question of the attendence of pathologists at
the Hillsborough Sportsground on the 15th April.
On that occasion
Professor Usher was called in and Professor Stephen Jones phoned me and
volunteered to come to Sheffield, an offer which I most readily accepted.
Dr. Slater also I believe came to the scene.
I should perhaps add that their help and advise was invaluable.
12th M a y
1989
(3)
Mr. D. Purchon
I have been reflecting on their attendence (particularly Professor Usher
and Professor Jones).
You will of course appreciate that no P.M.'s as
such were undertaken but I wonder whether a way of recognising their
presence and the help which thg.y gave on that occasion would be to
remunerate them at the value of one special P.M. fee i.e. £130.10 (plus
^ ^ a n y mileage and so on) as a recognition of the time, effort and help
which they provided on that sad day.
You will notice I have not specified remuneration for the mortuary
attendents or indeed Professor Jones' secretary.
I think you are in
a much better position than I am to quantitate these figures.
I will be very grateful if I could please hear from you as soon as
possible on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
S. L. POPPER
H. M. CORONER
f n
11th May
89
SLP/PAD
PS/PAB
Dr. Philip Simms,
South Safton (Merseyside) Health Authority,,
Walton Hospital,
Rice Lane,
Liverpool,
L9 1AE.
Dear D r , Simms,
Thank you for your letter of 5th May 1989,,1 note what you say, it
is not quite as straight forward as at first sight might appear. I
would like a little bit more time to sort this question out.
I will try and write to you again as soon as I reasonably can.
Yours sincerely.
S. L. POPPER
H. M. CORONER
fh.
SOUTH SEFTO N (M E R S E Y S ID E ) H E A L T H A U T H O R I T Y
Tel. 051-525 3611
When telephoning or calling please ask f o r :
WALTON HOSPITAL
RICE LANE
Our Ref. PS/PAB
LIVERPOOL
L9 1AE
Your Ref.
5th May, 1989
H.M. Coroner
H.M. Coroner's Department
Medical Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD S37 ES
Dear Sir,
Hillsborough Disaster - Post mortem reports
I am Consultant in the Accident and Emergency Department of Walton
Hospital, the main general hospital serving the north of Liverpool.
Now that most of the funerals have taken place, the relatives of a
number of victims are wanting to know more about the actual circumstances
of the deaths of their relatives and are asking for details of the actual
injuries and how they died.
Requests for help in this area have been
channelled to me, firstly through Miss Robson, Consultant
in Accident
and Emergency at Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, and now through
our own Medical Social Workers.
I would be most happy to help in this way, working in conjunction with
our Social Workers, but clearly it would be most helpful if I could see
copies of the post mortem reports.
I have no idea what the position is
with regard to this as the inquests are adjourned, but if it is possible
for these post mortem reports to be disclosed to ms then I would be in a
much better position to aid those few relatives who require additional
information.
If, however, it is not possible for you to do so at this
stage, perhaps you would let ms know.
I enclose a list of victims from within our catchment area in both
Liverpool and Sefton Health Authorities.
Your s ^ incerely,
PHILIP SDWS, F.r 'c .S.
Consultant - A.E.D.
Encl.
HILLSBOROUGH INCIDENT 15.4.89
Sefton deceased
1.
Roy HAMILTON (34)
2.
Gary CHURCH (19)
3.
Christopher Barry DEVENSIDE (1
4.
Stephen Joseph ROBINSON
5.
Eric HANKIN (33)
6.
Paul Anthony HEWITSQN (26)
7.
Nicholas JOYNES (26)
8.
Gary COLLINS (22)
9.
Kevin Daniel WILLIAMS (15)
(17)
10.
Simon BELL (17)
11.
Stuart Paul William THOMPSON (
12.
Philip John STEELE (15)
13.
Paul David BRADY (21)
14.
Gary Philip JONES (18)
15.
Barry BENNETT (26)
16.
Gordon HORN (20)
17.
Lee NICHOL
HILLSBOROUGH INCIDENT 15.4.89
Liverpool deceased
1.
Peter Andrew HARRISON (15)
2. Colin WAFER (19)
3. Paula SMITH (26)
4.
Alan JOHNSTON (29)
5.
Keith MCGRATH (17)
6.
Ian GLOVER (20)
7.
Peter TOOTLE (19)
8.| Peter McDONNELL (21)
9.
Richard JONES (24)
10. William Roy PEMBERTON (23)
11. Steven Paul COPOE (20)
12.
Michael David KELLY (38)
13.
John Alfred ANDERSON (62)
14.
Philip HAMMOND (14)
15.
Stephen Francis HARRISON (30)
16.
Garry HARRISON (27)
fb
5th May
89
SLP/PAD
WJR/TF/AED
W. J. Robson, F.R.C.S.,
Consultant in Paediatric Accident and
Emergency Medicine,
Liverpool Health Authority,
Royal Liverpool Childrens Hospital,
Alder Hey,
Eaton Road,
Liverpool,
L12 2AP.
Dear Miss W. J. Robson,
Thank you for your letter of 20th April.
I am sorry I have not
been able to reply before. Whilst I would be very anxious to assist
you as far as I am able with your coaneAIIAggof the bereaved families
I feel that at the moment it would not be appropriate for me to
disclose the P.M. Reports as these have not as yet been produced
in evidence either before me or the Judicial Inquiry.
It is my normal practice not to disclose P.M. Reports prior to the
inquest and for the time being I would prefer not to depart from
that practice.
Yours sincerely,
#
S. L. POPPER
H. M. CORONER
i
ROTHERHAM
HEALTH
AUTHORITY
Department of Histopathology
Rotherham District General Hospital
Moorgate Road
ROTHERHAM S60 2UD
Tel: Rotherham (0709) 820000 Ext 246
Consultant Histopatholoqist
DR. D.N. SLATER
DNS/OK
Dr. S. Popper,
HM Coroner,
South Yorkshire (West District),
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD
3rd May 1989
Dear Dr. Popper,
HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER AUTOPSIES
It goes without saying that all Coroner's work involves
a
degree
of
personal
tragedy for involved relatives
and
indirectly a degree of remuneration for histopathologists who
undertake autopsies at HM Coroner's request.
However, as I am an adequately salaried NHS Histopathologist
with a peripheral (although substantial) interest in forensic
medicine, I have decided in this particular instance of the
Hillsborough
disaster,
that I wish to make no personal
financial gain from having undertaken the autopsies
at your
request. I felt privileged to be invited by yourself to help in
this particular instance.
I have decided that it would be appropriate for my fees to be
paid to the Hillsborough Disaster Fund.
Although I had considered approaching you to have my
fees
waived at source and paid directly into the fund, unfortunately
this will not be possible as I have expenses
to
fulfil
for
individuals who have also kindly helped me on this occasion.
Here I refer to heavy secretarial duties in typing the reports
and the standard gratuitories to Mr, Roy Williams, the Mortuary
Superintendent who provided his services throughout the Sunday
and on the Monday morning. In addition we have the possible
complicating factor that Mr. Williams' time will be assessed
accurately by the Rotherham Local Authority. Although I have
had a verbal
assurance
from the Director of Environmental
Health that Rotherham will waive any appropriate fees in this
instance (possibly with a review to reciprocal arrangements
in
the
future),
one can clearly not be assured that this will
happen at the basic administrative
level.
However
if any
unwaived
fees are
forthcoming
from Rotherham District to
Sheffield District, perhaps you would be so kind as to pass the
appropriate billed request on to myself and I will deduct this
from my own autopsy fee payments.
When I have settled my expenses from all sources, I intend to
then donate the residual monies
to the appeal fund after
deduction of the normal higher rate tax.
I appreciate that possibly more monies could be donated to the
appeal by direct payment but my accountant fears a somewhat
complicated tax situation in view of the expenses which I will
have to pay.
It would also appear perhaps appropriate to pay some monies
back to the exchequer as normal in view of the heavy local
authority outgoings which will be involved.
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
D.N. SLATER
Consultant Histopathologist
54,Dore Road,
Sheffield,
S17 3NB.
April 25th 1989
Dr.S.Popper,
H.M.Coroner,
Medico-legal Centre,
Watery Street,
Sheffield.
Dear Dr.Popper,
Re
David William Mather,
David Steven Brown,
Kester Roger Marcus Ball,
Colin Andrew Sefton,
Thomas Anthony Howard,
James Philip Delaney,
John Alfred Anderson,
a ll victims of the Hillsborough Disaster.
I would be most grateful if you would make the necessary
arrangements for me to waive ray professional fee with regard to
the seven post mortem examinations on the patients listed
above, all performed in connection with the Hillsborough
Disaster, on condition that an equivalent sum be payed to the
Hillsborough Disaster Appeal.
I shall be grateful if you could arrange for me to receive
a receipt in due course.
I give my permission for copies of this letter to be used
for notification of the Inland Revenue.
Yours sincerely,
D r .J.R.Shortland
Senior Lecturer/Consultant Pathologist,
City of Sheffield Metropolitan District Ref.No. 20 028 96615.
/
■
&£>
p } r
Ic&y^ S='tt "
ROYAL LIVERPOOL CHILDRENS HOSPITAL
ALDER HEY
f ilA ib f h
LIVERPOOL HEALT>1 AUTHORITY
Eaton Road, Liverpool
L12 2AP
Telephone: 051-228 4811
Our Ref:
WJR.TF. AED
H. M. Coroner's Department,
Medico-legal centre,
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD,
S37 ES
If telephoning please ask for:
2261
20th April, 1989.
Dear Sir,
My staff and I talk to all parents of children who have died following
road traffic accidents and other trauma. This includes discussion
of the post mortem findings.
We have been asked to see the parents
of those under the age of 18 years who died in the Hillsborough
disaster.
Therefore, I would be grateful if you could forward copies
of the post mortem reports on these young people or a summary of the
injuries found in each one.
Although our hospital is based in
Liverpool city we serve the population of Knowsley and Sefton districts.
Enclosed is a list of relevant names and addresses.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully,___________
W. J. ROBSON, F.R.C.S.
Consultant in Paediatric Accident and Emergency Medicine
HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER
Names of young victims in relevant areas
ASPINALL, James Gary,
18
BELL. Simon.
17
DEVENSIDE, Christopher Barry,
18
GILHOOLEY, John Paul,
10
HAMMOND, Philip,
13
HARRISON, Peter Andrew.
15
HOWARD, Thomas Anthony.
1A
LEWIS. Carl James.
18
O'NEILL. Stephen Francis,
17
ROBINSON. Stephen Joseph.
17
ROGERS. Henry Charles,
17
SPEARRITT, Adam.
1A
STEEL, Philip John.
15
THOMPSON, Stuart Paul William, 17
TYRELL, Kevin,
15
WAFER. Colin.
WILLIAMS. Kevin Daniel.
16
WRIGHT. Graham Shaun.
17
fiM O
-J u *
Professor J C E Underwood, M D, FRCPath
Beech Hill Road
Sheffield S10 2RX
STD code: 0742
JCEU/BB
Dr. S. Popper,
H.M. Coroner,
Watery Street,
Sheffield S3 7ET
18 April 1989
Dear Dr. Popper,
You asked me to let you know the names of those staff from the
Royal Hallamshire Hospital who assisted with the autopsies at
the Medico-Legal Centre on Sunday 16th April.
Assisting Professor Laurence Henry, Dr. John Shortland and
myself were our three Mortuary Technicians: Mr. Arthur Birch,
Mr. John Birch, and Mr. Ian Illingsworth.
I was also assisted by your own Mortuary Technicians at the
Medico-Legal Centre. I was extremely impressed by the way in
which they were working under such difficult circumstances.
Disasters on this scale are fortunately rare, but you can be
assured of our willingness to help whenever the occasion arises.
Yours sincerely,
\J
J.C.E. Underwood
it
Beech Hill Road
Sheffield S10 2RX
STD code: 0742
Professor J C E Underwood, M D, FRCPath
JCEU/BB
Dr. S. Popper,
H.M. Coroner,
Watery Street,
Sheffield S3 7ET
2 May 1989
Dear Dr. Popper,
We are writing to request that any fees arising from autopsies
carried out by us, at your request, on Sunday 16th April on
bodies from the incident at Hillsborough Football Ground should
be paid directly into the University of Sheffield Hillsborough
Appeal, c/o Mr. J.W. Rowland, Cash Office, Finance Department,
University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN.
Yours sincerely,
T
Professor J.C.E. Underwood
Prof^ssui-
utiiii'y
j
yt.l.
GLOfaf
J O *’c
*
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
t= M
^ \ o£irt<
oCenC * *
)
MEETING HELD ON 31 AUGUST 1990 AT NECHELLS GREEK POT.TCK STATION TO DISCUSS THE
PROPOSED INQUESTS INTO THE HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER 1989
Present:
J M Jones, Deputy Chief Constable, Cheshire Constabulary
Detective Superintendent Beechey
Detective Chief Inspector Tope
Detective Inspector Perkins
In the light of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions that there
is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution against any party involved in
the Hillsborough Disaster, the following are issues which will have to be
considered for your Inquest
1.
VENUE
Obviously Sheffield will be the site where the Inquests
will be held, however, it is our opinion that the Medico
Legal Centre is probably unsuitable for the purpose
because of its size. Our reasoning is that there is
likely to be a fairly large number of solicitors/
barristers representing the various parties to this
disaster and they will take some considerable amount of
room to accommodate. Secondly, there is no doubt that
the Inquests will generate a considerable amount of press
interest and again, there is insufficient room. Thirdly,
a number of rooms will have to be made available to
various parties i.e. witnesses, West Midlands Police,
Solicitors, Press, Jury, welfare support staff etc.
Consequently, we recommend to you that we search for
suitable premises in the Sheffield area which could
accommodate your Inquests. In anticipation, therefore,
we have already put this matter in hand.
The usual considerations in so far as security,
transcripts, relaying/recording proceedings will have to
be considered.
The costs again for the provision of this accommodation
will have to fall upon Sheffield City Council and we
assume that you are going to make them aware. Before any
bookings are made our findings will be fully discussed
with you and your agreement sought.
2.
TIMING
At this stage we feel it is inappropriate to fix a date,
such as early November, as has been suggested, but rather
that we should carry out a sizing operation which can
only be fulfilled once we have made contact with the
various parties to the disaster as well as considered
what material you and we feel ought to be presented.
Therefore, we recommend no announcement be made for the
time being when the Inquests are going to take place.
Another factor affecting the length of the Inquests will
be whether we have to run through all the previous
evidence given at the Interim Inquests into the deaths of
the 95. If the same jury cannot be re-convened or a
substantial proportion of them, then you will have to run
through all the previous evidence. We are not sure how
you will do this or what time it will take, but it is a
consideration.
Having said that, we are of the opinion that the sooner
the Inquests take place the better and if we can start
them in the late Autumn that would be most acceptable.
A related issue is how long the Inquests will last. We
anticipate that they are likely to last as long as Lord
Justice Taylor’s hearing, which was 31 days, over 6
weeks, if not longer. We also anticipate that you will
probably, have as many witnesses as did he; 174.
Furthermore, there will probably be a number of requests
1 for full Inquests into how their loved ones died. We
“ believe this has already been indicated to you by Mr
Devonside and Mr Hicks, but we cannot think that these
will be the only ones who will want to trawl over the
evidence. You will probably be able to identify these as
well as ourselves.
Taking all this into account we see that the minimum
length of your Inquests is likely to be six weeks but
nearer twelve.
Another consideration of course will be whether your
Inquests are interrupted by unusual weather on the
Pennines, which if the experiences of the last two years
is followed, should not present too much difficulty.
However, we will see!
3.
CORONER* s POLICE INQUIRY TEAM
In terms of staffing we would propose the followings-
Deputy Chief Constable
Detective Superintendent
Detective Chief Inspector
Detective Inspector
Detective Sergeants
Police Constables
Civilians
Press Officer
(Rank to be decided)
-
One
One
One
One
Four
Five
One
One
The above obviously can be expanded according to need.
In addition, on a consultancy basis we have one Detective
Superintendent (Holmes Unit) and two Detective
Constables.
However, we believe if we fulfil the planning properly,
the staffing levels recommended should be sufficient.
However, if the time is compressed and you wish to start
early, obviously more people will have to be brought in.
There is a consideration here with regard to financing
the operation. As you know South Yorkshire Police are
responsible for meeting the West Midlands Police costs
which they have agreed to do. However, such is their
financial position that they are to say the least
embarrassed. Secondly, if we were to increase levels of
expenditure we could find that there could be
difficulties in South Yorkshire; we say no more!
DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS - We would propose to carry out
most, if not all, preparation work through the Nechells
office in Birmingham. As we near the time of the
commencement of the Inquests we would then move most of
the team to Sheffield where they would be accommodated
at Furnival House, as before. We would install a Holmes
Incident Room at Furnival House linked back to Nechells.
All of the documentation that we would require for the
Inquests to be taken to Sheffield, but if more was
required it would have to be relayed to Sheffield.
LIVERPOOL - Whether we would post any officers to the
Liverpool office at Knowsley Hall will be determined
nearer the time when we know who we are calling and their
place of origin.
It is not proposed to have any other officers deployed to
any other areas in the Country at this time. However,
during the course of your Inquests, follow-up enquiries
may become necessary and we will have to have a
contingency where we can obviously search the material
that we have already have as well as deploy officers to
locations in order to see "new evidence".
ACCOMMODATION - The officers, during the preparatory
time, will occupy their normal place of residence in the
West Midlands area. However, as the Inquests approach,
perhaps the week before, we will have to take up
residence in Sheffield with most of the team.
We would
prefer a suitable hotel in Sheffield and the Moat House
seems adequate for our needs. We would probably be able
to negotiate special rates again. Of course, you would
be welcome to join us. Bearing in mind that our team
could be there for something in the region of three
months I do believe that all officers should enjoy the
privacy of single occupancy rooms.
TRANSPORT - At the present time all hired vehicles have
been returned. However, there will be a need for some
vehicles both for the preparatory work, as well as being
available in Sheffield during the course of the
Inquests. Of course, some officers will have car
allowances and a policy decision will have to be made as
to how these will be used in conjunction with hired
vehicles.
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT - Miss Diane Henderson will
continue’to provide the Administrative support to the
Inquiry, which will include the payment of expenses,
recording of overtime, hiring of vehicles, booking of
accommodation etc.
In respect of the hours of duty - the work undoubtedly
will be intensive during the preparatory stages as well
as during the Inquests. It is likely, therefore, that we
will have to return to 12 hour working days. However,
the PNB advice still stands as regards the non-payment of
the 16 hours payment of officers accommodated away from
home. We would propose that this agreement continues.
COMMUNICATIONS Radio pagers and portable telephones
will have to be made available as required.
4.
TECHNICAL EQUIPMENT
Questions that will have to be addressed aresy
1.
Do you intend toshow any video of the layout
stadium or the match?
0V
2.
Do you intend to
3.
Will there be a need to relay the proceedings to
other locations (this will depend upon the location
itself).
V
4.
Amplification of verbal evidence.
'-/
5.
Transcripts - we assume that will be the same as
before?
6.
Holmes equipment will be moved under the direction
of Detective Superintendent Cobb and Detective
Inspector Perkins.
7.
The colour photocopier is now deployed within
the West Midlands Police area at another location.
Obviously, we will have access to it but it will
not be located on site in Sheffield.
5.
.
MATKRTAT.
WHAT EVIDENCE WILL YOU HEAR AT THE INQUESTS 7
fcvt
• /
(Jot*
/
jLf/edctX
Ûr
are that you will have to restrict most
carefully the amount of evidence you will hear and on
what subjects. However, parties to the event may have
different ideas. It is worth considering what each of
their motives are:f't& u f _
^ c' r.^ 7
? —aU
^
^
J t/V
record the proceedings?
We will have available in Sheffield for your use,
possibly' in court, a full set of the transcripts for the
earlier Inquests and Lord Justice Taylor’s hearings.
Lord Justice Taylor’s two reports and the 95 body files
will be available. All the photographs in our
possession, together with all of the video material will
also be taken. However, we would not propose to take all
the documentary evidence other than what we anticipate
will be required. However, this can be made available at
fairly short notice and delivered to Sheffield within one
working day.
•
J
BACKGROUND
of the
/
r-HT
-^ v
^
I
A
^
/
1. South Yorkshire Police Authority (through their
Insurers).
Will be seeking to establish as much evidence as they can
so far as the culpability of those who attended the
match. They will no doubt seek to illustrate that the
fans contributed to the outcome and that drunkenness and
disobedience to directions played a major part. They
will also be attempting to illustrate the number of
ticketless fans who were perhaps motivated to force the
situation where the gates were opened. South Yorkshire
Police Authority and Force will also be seeking to
illustrate the culpability of the Club as far as
capacity, signing, stewarding and issuing of tickets are
concerned. They will also be seeking to place
responsibility on Eastwood and Partners on barrier and
turnstile issues. They will also attempt to show the
nepotism of Sheffield City Council in the licensing
arrangements. All this will be motivated to assist their
civil case which may be heard by the time the Inquests
take place. If they have been heard then their role may
be more defensive as opposed to attacking defensive. As
far as the civil case is concerned we have already
attempted to find out what is happening but we have not
been terribly successful. You may think it appropriate
to write to the solicitors, Hammond Suddards, and
indicate your intention to start the Inquests and ask
them formally what the current position is.
2.
South Yorkshire Police Federation.
Will no doubt be attempting to gain additional
information to assist in civil claim against the Chief
Constable.
3.
South Yorkshire Police Officers as individual
represented.
As you are aware all the senior police officers who have
been interviewed have been legally represented and they
may well retain these through the Inquests. Their
motivation will be to defend themselves against any
police disciplinary proceedings and, of course, any
criminal proceedings which may follow a voluntary bill of
indictment.
(Attached to this note is a list of
Solicitors representing the parties - Appendix A.)
Of course, we have grouped together the relatives and
fans in general, but it may be that they are sub-divided
when it comes to the Inquests and may be group or
individually represented. The Football Association would
probably be keen to be involved, which could lead to
Football Association and Football League representatives
being present.
Sheffield Wednesday Football Club.
To maintain the status quo so far as Lord Justice
Taylor’s hearings are concerned and to defend their
liability against the South Yorkshire Police Action.
[//S.
Sheffield City Council.
To defend themselves as per (4) above.
^6.
Eastwood & Engineers.
. As per (4) above.
We feel that your Inquests should now concentrate on
"how" people came to meet their deaths at Hillsborough.
To a certain extent we have already dealt with the "why",
"where" and “when", in the preliminary Inquests. As has
already been said we may have to re-open those to satisfy
certain individuals, but generally speaking we should be
able to dismiss fairly quickly those aspects of your
Inquests.
As far as "how" is concerned we would suggest that you
concentrate on the period between say 1420 hours when the
crowd had noticeably built up, througlj^fe^Superintendent
Greenwood running on to the pitch a t l5Q?Hnurs plus to
stop-the match;— We'would say that tferTSnacapa, or
perhaps a newly prepared schedule, listing the
appropriate witnesses would be able to take you through
this time sequence.
The difficult bit is what additional evidence to lay.
How far would you want to go back as far as background is
concerned?
You may wish to address this in a general sense giving a
flavour of the evidence, with perhaps some expert
evidence from a West Midlands Police officer as to how
proportionate that is to what was taken. In respect of
the latter we think particularly in respect of the amount
of drunkenness and unruliness during the build up to the
crush outside the ground at about 1420 hours onwards.
In addition, you may wish to take representation from the
various parties listed above, and any of those we have
missed, should you wish to pursue a particular line. You
will no doubt then decide whether you think it is
appropriate to hear that evidence.
âve noted that you intend to ignore Lord Justice
IAojJk 1 I Baylor's earlier hearings and report findings. We think
Mr
, this is correct, albeit during the natural course of the
y
Inquests no doubt legal representatives will refer back,
which is probably unavoidable.
i.
Cxf>^ Id-eou*''
fui
*
^
7
•/V-o?
JA
>»”*
You will also require expert evidence with regard to a
number of technical aspects. The barrier will be a major
point of concern. You will obviously require the Health
anc* Safety Executive and possibly the Forensic Science
Service evidence.
The turnstile layouts and the pen arrangements will also
be of concern. Again the Health and Safety Executive may
help.
Also the behaviour of people in crowds and crushes is one
that we do not think you ought to ignore. We are already
researching the possibility of finding an expert on crowd
psychology and adaptive behaviour.
THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME
We feel that the next stage is for you to write to the
various legal representatives indicating that you have
heard the Director of Public Prosecutions decision and
that you intend, at some stage, hopefully in the not too
distance future, to re-convene the Inquests in
Sheffield. We feel that you should indicate that you
will decide what evidence will be heard, but before doing
so, we would welcome any thoughts that they have, in
writing, about aspects that they would like aired at your
Inquests. Of course, your invitation will be without
prejudice I
Once you have received the responses to those letters
within a certain deadline, we can then consider their
representations in the light of thoughts we have had in
the meantime as to how we progress the Inquests. The
product of those details will then create an agenda for
staff at Nechells to develop the preparatory work as well
as the logistical work to which we have already referred.
You may consider a role that we could adopt is as acting
as a "buffer" between yourself and the legal
representatives. We could usefully follow up any letter,
on an informal basis, in order to ascertain precisely
what they are expecting and what the likely requirements
are to acceding or denying their individual requests.
Another aspect we would like to direct your mind to is
what kind of questions you are likely to ask for the
information held in the HOLMES system. Much of the
information is readily accessible but can be more
difficult in some areas when we have no theme. We will
need the maximum amount of notice to be able to address
these issues in good time for your Inquests.
One final point in this section is your legal
representation. As we recall you have already consulted
with Mr Michael Powers and you may wish to engage him
again for the Inquests on your behalf. Indeed, there may
be questions that may come out of our preliminary
enquiries which will have to be addressed to him so that
you can be appropriately advised.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
As was the case with the earlier Inquests, we will have
to consider the role of the vgjîetts-welfare support
services. witness warning.^fransportation^knd
tcommodatior
^
We also believe that there will be considerable press
activity at the beginning and during the course of
certain notable witnesses and at the end of the
Inquests. The extent to which this will become a problem
will be determined by "other news" of the day. However,
we believe that the families of the deceased will be
doing their utmost to engage the media machine to
publicise their case. Again we intend to service the
press professionally with a dedicated officer.
APPENDIX A
ACC JACKSON
Hammond Suddards
Empire House
lb Piccadilly
Bradford
BD1 3LR
Tel:
0274 734700
Solicitor
Charles Metcalf
CHIEF SUPT DUCKENFIELD
Hepworth & Chadwick
Cloth Hall Court
Infirmary Street
Leeds
LSI 2JB
Tel:
0532 430391
Solicitor
Christopher Coughlin
SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY FC
Davis Arnold Cooper
12 Bridewell Place
London
EC4V 6 AD
Tel:
071 353 6555
Solicitor
Patrick O ’Callaghan
SUPT GREENWOOD
Barlow Lyde & Gilbert
Beaufort House
15 St Botolph Street
London
EC3A 7NJ
Tel:
071 247 2277
Solicitor
Richard Hoare
EASTWOODS
Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
Chichester House
278/282 High Holborn
London
CIV 7HA
Tel:
021 242 2877
SUPT MARSHALL
Vincent Hale & Co
Nash House
Sheffield
S6 3NF
Tel:
Solicitor
SUPT MURRAY
0742 325842
Vincent Hale
Walker Morris Scott Turnbull & Coles
St Andrews House
119 - 121 The Headrow
Leeds
LSI 5NP
Tel:
0532 469686
Solicitor
Richard Manning
PCs SMITH & ILLINGWORTH
Russell Jones & Walker
9 Quebec House
Quebec Street
Leeds
LSI 2HA
Tel:
061 832 8877
Solicitor
Nick Holroyd
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
Keeble Haws on
Old Cathedral
Vicarage Street
James Row
Sheffield
Tel:
0742 722061
FILE NOTE DATED 3.10.90. MEETING AT MEDICO-LEGAL CENTRE
WITH MERVYN JONES, CAROLINE PERKINS, STAN BEECHEY AND FOR
PART OF THE TIME, SUE HARPER.________________________________
Had a very long meeting starting at about 10-o-clock and
finishing after 5.
1.
We spent a considerable amount of time looking through
the
,for the Inquest which I had prepared and the
schedules of witnesses.
Mr. Jones wasn't very happy
with the revised version in which I suggested that we
would take the evidence of supporters first followed by
others.
He thought that this would give an unbalanced
impression.
We spent a considerable amount of time
debating t h i s . When we went through the various
schedules it became clear that in respect of some of
them at least it would be practical to deal with
supporters and others at one and the same time but I
thought that it might be difficult with regard to some
of the other aspects, particularly as in principle I
preferred to take the evidence of people whose conduct
was likely to be called in question towards the end.
We in the end agreed that we would think about the set
up again.
2.
We spent some time discussing the witnesses.
I
explained that the names which I had put down would
have to be pruned and thinned. This was the first cul
so to speak.
We agreed that the officers would a.
merge the schedule of names from the body files with
LESABB
-
2
-
the other names, taking out duplicates.
We would then
try and group witnesses and access them, so that we
would have first rank witnesses with back-ups in case
they were unable to come for example.
The object of
the exercise was to try and give a rounded and balanced
view of what people had seen or perceived both from
supporters as well as others.
considerable amount of work.
This will involve a
I suggested that it was
important that we dealt with supporters and lay people
first so that we could try and give as much notice as
possible to them.
I explained that I had not yet
looked at police witnesses because I had not had time.
We then went and spent a considerable amount of time
viewing the Don Valley Stadium complex and the Rutland
Hotel.
Neither of them are ideal, but of the two,
probably the Don Valley is for our purposes better,
provided that we can use the suite downstairs and not
the long room upstairs.
At the Rutland Hotel we were
entertained to sandwiches and then had a look at the
accommodation.
Whilst the syndicate bedrooms were
satisfactory, the whole thing gave a rather run-down
appearance with a very poor entry.
In addition the
room suitable to be used as a court room was only
marginally bigger than the Medico-Legal Centre and had
no satisfactory lobby or entrance room.
One would have
had to go into the open air to cross from one section
to another.
LESABB
Although it had attractions in the sense
-
3
-
that it was central and that there was food and
accommodation etc., close by, I think it's
disadvantages outweighed it's addvantages.
Upon return to the office, we spent another hour or two
talking about what needed to be done.
background statement.
We discussed the
It was agreed that it would
probably be better if this was given by several people
rather than by one person and arrangements were put in
hand for the appropriate officers to start preparing a
statement.
The intention would be that they would let
me have a version by the 15th so that we could send it
out to solicitors as soon as possible for their
comments, with the view to having an agreed back-ground
statement.
We discussed whether this would be the
opportune time to invite them to Pre-Inquest Review or
discussion.
The problem was raised by me plus the fact
that it would be difficult to exclude non-lawyers as
this could be open to criticism at a later time.
We
felt that perhaps on balance it might be better not to
arrange a meeting.
I pointed out that one or two of the sub-sections were
more difficult than others,
for example pub survey.
Also I pointed out that the requirement for sorting out
when people came throu^gh into the Stadium had to be
done very carefully and that whoever presented it had
to be ready to justify his opinions. We agreed some
re-shuffling and re-numbering of the schedule and we
LESABB
-
4
-
also agreed at Mr. Jones's suggestion that we should
start with a video of 1989.
I asked whether there were
any other witnesses who were close to the barrier.
Apparently there are quite a lot.
Maybe up to 40 but
the evidence is even less specific and clear as that we
have already got.
I asked whether we had a statement
from Nigel Clough
have a look to see what
there was available.
L,
f^ i
JfO
^
V c£r
^
V O fy D r
We discussed whether Mr. Sharper
/ ;
should be called as a witness.
I^pointed out that this
could create problems for him in view of his position
______
__________
. . .Liverpool.
. ______
as
Chief
Constable in
0^
______
_________
We
would
have to
review what he actually said to see whether a. it was
3
if
yA
f4
necessary to have the evidence, and b.
whether it
could be obtained from another Jlcwwrse.
I said I would
re-consider the matter.
We discussed one or two other
aspects relating to turnstiles and the rt^\people could go through.
in which
It was felt that this would
V
be better dealt with by Dr. Nicholson.
We discussed
the timing for warning of witnesses and we felt we
ought to aim to do this as early as we reasonably could
and that perhaps a suitable pro-forma letter should be
prepared and go out just as soon as we knew who we
were certainly going to call.
them later.
We could then schedule
We agreed that this work would have to be
done through the West Midlands Police Officers.
It was agreed that we would have a look to see who
amongst the relatives was thought to be either unable
LESABB
-
5
-
or unwilling to give evidence or who might be
particularlarly interested in doing so. We also noted
that some people, particularly a P.C. Smith apparently
were very unwell, and probably would not be fit to give
evidence.
I said that we ought to have a doctor's
letter to that effect.
During the day we discussed the giving of evidence.
I
suggested it might be an idea if we dealt in fairly
great detail with the evidence of some of the people
who were perhaps at the forefront of the issue and who
had made some of the criticisms.
Whilst ia one
a
this was unfair as it gave undue prominence to them 3/9 y
\ieJJL-as other people who perhaps had been more quiet
<£71
olh .
,wou4^-JDu;
>tr--gHtr~blHrS~~e«p4^najH ^ n , Jj*- another it was not
only fair but very fair because it ensured that the
points which people felt strongly about and which they
were prepared to be vocal over had been put to the
inquest jury.
I explained that I was unable to summons people outside
my jurisdiction and that if we had to issue summonses
it would have to be done through the Crown Office.
would try and find out the procedure.
I
Letters notify
ing people of the dates when they were likely to be
called had to go out this month.
We discussed the possibility of adjournment.
I
explained the problems i.e., Judicial Reviews,
application by several parties, civil trial, overunning
etc.
LESABB
I
fyi
Mr. Beechey brot%frt a fax machine for me to use temporarily
at home. This will eventually be required at Pumiwal House
and will of course have to be returned. I agreed that they
could have it back whenever they wanted it.
TELEPHONE
C A L L T O MR.
FRAZER.
I had found a note on my desk which said "please ring
^him".
It turned out to be an old note.
He confirmed that
he was coming on the 30th with Mr. King of Counsel and
probably an articled clerk.
He mentioned that Mr. Jackson
from the Supporters Association might be in touch.
that he had already
I said
been so.We discussed Mrs. McBrien.
He confirmed that she had told him that she didn't want
him to represent her at the Inquest though she still wanted
him to act
in other matters. She
impression
that she would be able to ask most questions.
Mr. Frazer said that he felt
seemed to be under the
Mrs. McBrien thought that the
should not have been opened under any
circumstances and felt very strongly about that.
He said that he thought there cannot be many coroners in
this country who weren't feeling sorry for me.
I said it
was a very difficult problem and a lot of hard work.
It
was regrettable that it would not be possible to please
everybody^ i n d e e d , aja<i tjâ"t I had had another letter from
somebody who wasn't very happy with the Interim Inquests
despite the fact that he Mr. Frazer had made a special
submission on his behalf.
I said in the end I could only
do my best and that the verdict was a matter of
indifference to me in the sense that I had no axe to grind
and that it was a matter for the Jury to bring in whatever
verdict they thought.
BACAAV
Mr. Frazer was very sympathetic.
We spoke about the location.
I told him that the Inquest
Review was at the Medico Legal Centre but the Inquests were
at the Town Hall.
Mr. Frazer thought that we might well be
moving back here if interest fell off as sharply as it had
done in the Interim Inquests.
He said that he would have
to be very quiet at the Pre-Inquest Review as he had
counsel with him.
BACAAV
FILE NOTE OF A MEETING W ITH MERVYN JONES, STAN BEECHEY.
CAROLINE HIGHTQN AND S .L .P .14.8.90. AT THE MEDICO LEGAL
CENTRE STARTING AT ABOUT QUARTER TO TWELVE.
The meeting convened and it was noted that no decision from
the D .P ,p . had yet been reached.
it was being rumoured
that a decision might be announced within the next 2 or 3
weeks and it was felt that we should perhaps start thinking
about what we would do etc., on the assumption that no
prosecution were to take place.
We spent a little time talking about the possibility of
prosecution including possible Health & Safety Executive
aspects, but of course we were not able to take or reach
any definitive decision on this.
It was noted that the civil proceedings were apparently
going to commence in October.
We discussed what the
position would be with regard to those, whether the Inquest
should be postponed in particular whether if thecivil
proceedings were completed, whether this would take any
heat out of the proceedings.
I felt that bearing in mind that South Yorkshire had in
fact underwritten their claim, the main thrust of the
proceedings as far as the participants were concerned would
be:-
A. To try and obtain a verdict of Unlawfully Killed
on the one hand and
B. To redress the balances as
the other parties
of the fans.
BABABJ
perceived by some of
with regard to the involvement
t
2
I did not personally think that the civil side would play
such a major role.
It was of course understood and acknowledged that strictly
speaking a Coroner's Inquest should not seek to determine
either civil or criminal liability but because of the
possibility of a verdict of Unlawfully Killed, it was
^
necessary to carry out a fairly extensive inquiry.
We did
discuss whether there was any way of perhaps dealing with
the Inquests on a more limited basis, but it was felt that
we either had to do virtually nothing, or probably a very
extensive investigation.
We discussed Lord Justice Taylor's report.
I
did not think
that we would be able to use it as such and particularly as
the Jury of course were not aware of its contents.
We started thinking about the scope of the Inquest.
it was
obvious that West Midlands officers were anxious to have
£
some guidance as to my thinking, particularly as some
decisions had to be taken with regard to the size of the
team which would be required and/or retained.
I
thought
that once we had got things up and running, we probably
would'nt need that many officers.
Mervyn felt that
probably 20 might be the right number, with scope for
increasing if necessary.
We discussed the scope of the Inquest.
I
drew the analogy
of a normal r.t.A. where we would not deal with post-impact
BABABJ
-
3
I
f e l t
1
m a tte rs
a t
th e
f ie ld
and
on
th e
d is a s te r ,
o r
in
th e
w h o le
and
n o t
-
d e a l
m o rtu a ry ,
th a t
w ith
we
w hat
p a r tic u la r ly
sh o u ld
draw
happened
as
we
had
on
a
lin e
th e
a lre a d y
alt with this quite extensively at the previous hearings
in April/May.
On the other hand, it might be necessary to deal with some
of the other aspects in rather more detail.
a bit of time discussing this.
^
We spent quite
We were all well aware of
the criticims which had been made of the police and the
club and no doubt this evidence would have to be dealt with
as appropriate (though we noted that the officers
themselves might well refuse to give evidence on the basis
of anything they said might incriminate the m).
On the other hand,
I
felt that we would have to explore the
aspects of crowd behaviour.
m
particular, we had to try
and deal with the reasons if any why there was the pressure
outside the turnstiles and the outer perimeter gates.
The
effect if any of alcohol on this as well as the effect of
0
mass behaviour (Mervyn's point).
We also felt that we
could not avoid dealing with the broken barrier as that was
seen to have played quite a part in the number of the
deceased equally it was important to try and deal with what
seemed to be the case that a lot of the people who died
actually came in fairly late on.
I
felt that it was
essential that we should actually get this pinpointed
accurately.
I
also felt that it might be worth then,
having analysing alcohol levels to see if a.
BABABJ
what they
V
4
showed and b. whether any statistically interesting matters
would be drawn.
I felt that in the interests of justice and fairness, one
had to try and weave together the behaviour mood of the
crowd, the effect if any of alcohol in crowd behaviour on
them and the contagion which this might have spread to
^
everybody there.
The effect if any that this might have
had on officers, the physical nature of the stadium
together with assigning turnstiles etc., the broken barrier
and finally and by no means least, the organisation and
policing efforts which had been put in place.
We noted that in the discussions we were spending quite a
lot of time on issues of crowd behaviour and the psychology
etc. and it was interesting to note that if these avenues
were going to be pursued and were going to be fruitful,
that this aspect of the inquiry would in fact differ to a
#
certain extent from what had happened in the Public
Inquiry.
We discussed the timing.
I said if we were to start this
year I would like to complete before Christmas if at all
possible.
We felt that maybe starting at the beginning of
November might be a possibility, provided of course a
decision was announced fairly soon.
I also said that if
the civil proceedings were going on, it might be very
difficult to resist an application for an adjournment.
BABABJ
-
5 -
We discussed the possibility of agreeing a statement on
non-contraversial matters to be presented by an appropriate
West Midlands officer.
We also discussed briefly the
difficulty of giving proper weighting to the preponderance
or otherwise of evidence in one direction as opposed to
another, but it might be possible to get information about
this out of the computer.
BABABJ
i/bcd.
P
fv I
'- Ji/Ljitd-y
ft-
Inquest
Immediate
(
l\^
~
actions.
ft\
J uxA
1 Agree subject for inclusion in
inquests:.
Who.
a. Identification (opening)
Where and when.
b. History from home to ground
c. factual data as to ingress into
ground eg through turnstyle/Gate C
and location in pen.
d. Visual indentification as
faras possible of deceased whether
alive or dead in the ground.
presentation : summaru and
annacappa
Confirmation by witnesses of visual
evidence above.
If possible by using precis but ?
whether at least some witnesses
should be called ? how many.
? whether possible to call senior
police officers or others even to
give non controversial evidence.
This may need to be discussed with
DPP.
How.
Pathologist evidence and alcohol
levels.
EXCLUDE FROM HEARING AT THIS STAGE.
anything that may be detrimental to
DPP inquiry. In particular exclude
Any attack or criticism of any
individual , individuals, body
corporation or group.
Dates.
Estimate time for each inquest
Number of inquests per day?
Location for inquest.
-
fi*. l*yM)fc>VC2
Medico Legal centre
Circulation of evidence pre hearing
in particular :
precis
any statements to be used as
documentary
NB No SYP to be called at all.
Draft letter.
Consider desirability for press
release.
People to be contacted or notified,
see letter.
Hillsborough support group in
Sheffield .
?Local clergy
? via bishop
Representatives of other religions?
? WVS re coffee etc.
Shorthand writers
Witnesses:
warning by WMP
and solicitors
Press
number of seats required at
inquest?
No cameras or recorders in court
? policy on interviews.
? special meeting with
representatives of the press
to discuss their needs and
to indicate need for sensitivity
particular in follow up of families
and in particular at or near the
court.
Need for :
loudspeaker equipment
Model from public enquiry
facility to display plan
Telephone connection or facilities
for: coroner and staff
relatives
legal representatives
press
fax machine
Page
2
photocopier
Decision as to whether any evidence
can be called for all cases
together eg Dr Forrest.
Prof Usher
Insp. Layton
Note explain view with regard to
use and copies of photographic
evidence.
PRE INQUEST REVIEW.
Objectives:
a. to make sure that
representatives understand the
scope and limitations of the
resumptions
b. To deal with options for
further resumptions on the basis
of:
1. DPP brings manslaughter charges
against anyone. Deal with
subsection 16. 1. a and b.
and effect on inquest.
2.
? private prosecution if no action
taken by DPP.
3. If no action taken and no
private prosecution started Inquest
will have to be resumed but scope
and extent will be determined by
me.
4. Other possibility is minor
charges but not likely to influence
date of inquest.
c. to sort out any
questions of representations
d. deal with the question of Jury
e. to explain principle of order
of hearings.
This would be in order of
Pathologist subject to the
overiding requirement that members
of one family would be dealt with
on the same date
subject to this the order would
be governed by
i.overlap of witnesses to minimise
attendance
Page
3
ii. complexity
iii.convenience
f. format of inquest
Documentary or precis where
possible
To assist will circulate
copy of summary to deceased
representative (ie steering
committee) for them to confirm
the use of this document
sort out whether this is acceptable
whether all parties wish to see
documents beforehand.
It will not be possible to obtain
copies of video or ? photographs
WMP officers to give evidence in
terms as to location of deceased,
this will then form part of the
trancript.
One set of the video used in the
court will have to be available for
the coroner for filing with his
records.
Ditto for any photographs produced.
g.Viva voce evidence from
pathologist.
ascertain whether this is required
by representatives.
Dr Forrest and anyone else in same
class to be taken initially so that
he does not have to be present
throughout inquest.
Explain that in some cases where
parties felt that they wanted to
hear him again he could be called
again.
h. Proceedings to be
transcribed and copy transcripts
available at the appropiate charge.
Not intented that transcripts will
be available on next day as for
practical purposes individual
inquests at this stage.
i.Explain that it is the intention
to have available at the locus
1. refreshment facilities
2. Hillsborough support team
members
we would notify if possible a
liason officer inthe the team of
the dates when the individual
inquest take place but up to
solicitors to maintain contact
and be line of communication/
6 . Legal representatives must
consider that if they wish to see
family after their inquest they
must have other representative
available to deal with the next
inquest.
j.Family members not called as
witness will have to finance their
own journey and expenses
k. right of press to be present at
inquest.
1 . to listen to any points
representives migh wish to put
re the running of the inquest
m. obtain confirmation that the
limitations and scope of the
resumption is understood and
agreed.
21st February 1990.
reviewed for meeting on 26/2/90 on
26/2/90.
PRE/INQ/REV
dated 6th March 1990
Notes of ground to be covered at Pre Inquest Review on 6th March
1990 at 2 pm at the Medico Legal Centre Water St. Sheffield.
1. Refer to Previous meeting on 28.02.90 with Mr. Kennedy,
Hammond Suddards, Solicitors for SYP and Mr. Frazer of the
Hillsborough Steering Committee Mr. M. Jones ACC WMP and SLP.
2. DPP.
a. Definitely No information as to DPP decision
b. in any case No decision yet taken
c. All papers not yet submitted and therefore not
possible for decision to be taken.
d. Present time scale would not permit DPP final
report to be submitted until after commencement
of proposed resumed limited inquests.
3.Possible Scenarios:
a. Prosecution b. No Prosecutionbut Private Pros.
c. No Prosecution -
Sec. 16 CA 1988.
Sec. 16 CA 1988
Inquest
-
4. Pre Inq Rev. has arisen as a direct result of letter from Miss
Steel outlining certain difficulties, correspondence from Hammond
Suddard, previous thinking about matter natural anxiety for
information.
5. ResumedInquest to be of limited scope. Under no circumstances will
we deal at thisstage with How and even less with Why or Whom to
blame.
In particular no attack or criticism of any individual(s) or body(s)
Nothing that may be detrimaental to DPP enquiry.
This is necessary
a. DPP has only agreed to limited inquest at this stage
b. In the interests of justice not least that of the bereaved..
6 . Scope of Inquest.
Medical Evidence Alcholol levels will be revealed for each person
for whom they are available.
Evidence of movement of the deceased as far as possible.
In particular we will try where that is possible to indicate
where the deceased was seen in a particular pen.
Identifications are more satisfactory for some than others
ofcourse.
At the end of the hearing bereaved should hopefully know where
it has been possible to establish it the when and where of death.
7.Method of producing the evidence.
a. Post Mortem Reports, subject to representations I think
it may be possible to deal with many of these without
calling the Pathologist.
Page
1
b. We will not call Dr. Forrest to each inquest to prove
alcohol levels but will have him present at the beginning
to deal with his findings. In any individual case where
I think it necessary I will ofcourse call him.
c. We will not call any SYP officers of any rank
d. In each case a WMP officer will have prepared a summary
of each individual file which together with the file
will be submitted to me. The officer will present his
summary. It will to the best of ability be factually correct
but will be non adverserial in tone and content.
i. I will have seen the summaries and the complete files before
each inquest and it is my intention to have read each of the
95 files before the inquest.
ii. The summaries will be circulated to HSC and probably to
Hammond Suddard before the hearing but not to others but
not to others who will ofcourse hear it at the Inquest.
iii. The purpose of early circulation is:
1. to enable Sol to indicate
whether they are content with summary or whether anything is
not clear so that if it is possible that can be elaborated at
the hearing.
2. To enable solicitors to share information with families
so as to give pre warning of the evidence and lessen if
possible distress
e. We will also have available Annacappa reports which are a
different form of summary but it may not be possible to
circulate these.
f. I do not intend to use Video at this hearing.
g. I will avoid using photographs or video stills whereever
possible. Instead I intend to use either the summarising
officer or other police officers to indicate on plans the
positions where deceased where seen either alive or dead.
Most families have already seen the photographs and confirmed
the identifications.
Relevant stills will be available if needs must.
h. I may use other evidence from witnesses either viva voce or
documentary if I think that it is necessary but do not expect
to do so often as the summaries should give the information
in adequate form.
8.
I intend on the opening day to take evidence from some witnesses
eg Dr. Forrest, Prof Usher Insp. Layton which will help with
understanding of the generality of the evidence and the method of
presentation. It may also help with the length of the
proceedings.
9. Listing. This is going to be difficult. We are starting off with
pathologist order but we anticipate that there are many factors
which will influence the order eg two deceased in one family.
Listing will appear random but will in fact have had considerable
thingking put into it. Whilst we would not wish to deliberately
incovenience anyone the listing will be done by me/or undr my
authority.
Page
2
4
We are aiming to do 8 Cases per day.
Wil1 uit: xit:u 0ne- Not much that they wil1 be able to do
f 1-hear:L?8S
nk th a t i1: would be unwise t0 Proceed
without them. It must be remembered that Inquest are by definition
non adversarial and these limited hearings even more so.
11. Location. Medico Legal Centre.
to *b^paidfforS* m i
^ aVailable‘ Not next day service.
Will have
1.3. Hillsborough Support group. Aware of the involvment of social
workers. We will endeavour to inform a liason person in the group of
the proposed listing but would expect that detailed liason will be
Coroner-°HSC/Sot b6c6aVe? ^ V s solicitors or HSC. ie Communication
coroner HSC/Sol - Social workers etc and others.
I t ' , % V±1l e n i ? ™ UT t 0 8ive as much warning as possible but it may
be difficult and there may have to be last minute changes.
k® l n S
t° no?lfy solicitors who we expect will let their clients
know. We will also endeavour to warn at least one family member direct
either by post or viva voce.
if* ? i T US6 o f ,Presfure on time if some one does not turn up on time
we will proceed without them.
16. We will endeavour to have coffee and biscuit facilities on site.
i
Wl11.?? entitJfd t0 attend* but because of space constrains
press passes will probably have to be issued.
18. Comments from floor.
19. Representation of interested parties.
20 Any other business.
21. Date for resumed inquest.
22 . Starting time of resumed inquests.
Page
3
HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER.
Before I start with the Inquests proper so to speak there are
one or two remarks which I feel I would like to make, these
are general comments and the first one is of course to say that
in common with anybody else who has been in any way associated
with indeed not associated with this incident, I very very
much regret the tragic loss of life which has occurred and
I fully understand what a terrible, well I don’t fully understand
but I try to understand what a terrible shock and loss and pain
this must be for all the families involved and it isn’t of course
helped by the fact that in addition to losing loved ones, they
have to have the trauma such as it is of Inquests and other
investigations and inquiries and the inevitable delay which
occurs in a major disaster situation such as this.
I make no comment whatsoever about the incident itjelf or what
happened before the match or around that time because of course
those questions will be not only the subject of a judicial inquiry
which we are all familar with now, but may well also have to
be investigated within the scope of the Coroner’s Inquestion, but
I do want to say this, that after the events, I have nothing but
praise for the way the temporary mortuary was organised, the allocation
of officers to help with the identification and to deal with the
very traumatic but essential work of ensuring that one knew who
one was talking about and it is really due to the extraordinary
good work which was done that it was possible to identify people
as fast as in fact it turned out to be possible, and I want it understood,
speaking for myself as Coroner, I have had the utmost help in trying
to perform my job with fcfcese deaths from all the police officers,
from the most senior ones down to the most junior ones, and in
particular, I want to mention the junior officers because it was
they who had to be allocated to the body, it was they who had to
accompany it, it was they who had to do the identification, it was
they in fact who had to take a statement immediatelly after the body
was identified, so in a sense they were the first contact with the
grieving relative who had just found out about the death, and
that’s pretty hard, not only for the relatives but also for the
officers, and I think one must acknowledge them.
I think it is only right as well for me to say that we couldn’t
have performed the organisation method of moving the bodies
backwards from the hospitals to the temporary mortuary for
identification and then all the bodies to the Medico Legal Centre
if the ambulance service hadn’t voltmteered, not only crew
and vehicles but also organise themselves so that they dealt with
all the transportation, not a hitch, no problems, none at all,
and I am exceedingly grateful to them for their efforts in that
respect.
As you will of course appreciate, this building which is a purpose
built building, and which houses not only the Coroner’s Court
but houses Pathological
Departments but also the Mortuary, has
a substantial capacity but we are not normally expecting to deal
with numbers of such as we had on Saturday, but it’s right I
think to say, that this building was an expensive venture for
Sheffield when it was built, but in a situation such as this, I
think it has been justified, because it is exceedingly unlikely
that we would have been able to deal with the deaths in the manner
in which we were, and with the speed as which we were, because
one of our prime objectives has been to minimise the delay
to relatives, so that they can proceed with their funerals, we
cannot undo the events, but having been faced with that situation
I wanted, as far as possible, to minimise unnecessary trauma
to the family
as I have just said, if we hadn’t had the facilities
and I think the people, the City Councillors who took the decision
years ago to put this building up, they may now feel that they were
in fact justified, but of course it’s very satisfactory to have
a building, you also need the st ff to actually carry out the
post mortems, and I have to thank the teams of pathologists, and
technicians, and other members of staff who spent a great deal
of time, but who completed all the post mortem work in order to
enable me to begin opening the -Inquests this afternoon.
I owe them
a debt of gratitude and I think I want to publiclyacknowledge that.
There is another factor to this and that is of course the people,
we deal with deaths all the time, as you can imagine, but when
you have an influx of numbers such as on Saturday our capacity was
exceeded in fact, and if it hadn't been for the fact that both
the hospitals in Sheffield willingly agreed to take what I will
describe as the normal cases, not the disaster cases, and dealt with
them from a mortuary point of view, I’m not talking about the work
which they did in casualty, where they have been dealing with the living,
which we all know about, but without their co-operation, their help,
we wouldn't have been able to do what has been done, and I think
I want again that to be understood and acknowledged, and whilst
I am on that, I think it is only right to say that it’s very easy to
overlook when we have a major disaster of this nature, we are looking
at such a lot of numbers, and we are, two things happen.
First of all
we forget that other people who lose loved ones, some of them in
tragic circumstances as well, they don't get reports because they
are ’one offs’, they don’t make an impact on the media, but they
cause exactly the same amount of pain and loss and sorrow as losing a loved
one at Hillsb»*9Ugh, and the other, the corollary to this is that it is
very easy to overlook the fact that because there are such a lot of
numbers we are so bemused by the technicalities, by the enormity of
events that we forget the individuals, and that really for each family,
we are thinking of one or two, as the case may be losses, and it’s they
who we should have in mind as well as the overall problem, and finally
as I am sure all of you know, there have been very very many individuals
and asociations who have spent an enormous amoumt of time councelling,
being with, sitting, helping the relatives in their distres.
Some of
the people spent hours and it is exceeding draining to do that, and
although in a sense they were dealing with the living, and my job as Coroner
is to deal with the dead, I do want to acknowledge the fact that people
have been, I am certain, a great support.
I am not mentioning any
names, or even organisations, I am just saying it in general terms,
and of course I would also like to think my own officers, who have put
in a tremendous amount of work in relation to this matter.
SIR HARRY LIVERMORE.
Mr. Coroner, I am grateful for your kind expressions of sympathy and
I will see that my clients and the other bereaved families are
made fully aware of your sensitive remarks.
I would also like
to add my thanks to the officers who helped in the delicate
task of the removal of the bodies and the process of identification.
All the staff who assisted in expediting the necessary process
which resulted in us being here at this moment in point of time
and I would like to thank again on behalf of all my clients and
the bereaved families, all the people and organisations of Sheffield
who have assisted thd bereaved families since this terrible tragedy
occurred.
Mr. Coroner Liverpool at the moment is a heartbroken city.
The people
are upset they are disturbed, they are sa d and they are also angry.
They are angry not only that such a tragedy has occurred, but also
because of the dreadful and untotally insensitive remarks made
yesterday by the President of U&F.A. The tragedy will never be
by the
forgetton or forgiven/ feople of Mersyside, nor will tije remarks
of Msr.CjÔftG^fj
Thank you sir.
however many times he may apologise.
OPENING OF THE INQUEST OH THE HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER.
The position as you know, is that until the Inquest is being
completed I cannot issue a final certificate to the Registrar
and as a result it isn't possible to issue, the Registrar General
or the Registrars cannot issue a death certificate as such.
It
is my intention, in the course of the next few days, to write to
each individual family, a letter, and if you wish I can write
to you in the case of your clients, and we will be enclosing
with that letter a document which we have titled An Interim
Certificate of the Fact of Death and subject to the proviso
that the cause of death has to be formally proved at the
Inquest we will disclose on that document the cause of death
as given to us by the pathologist.
This is not entirely
satisfactory but it’s the best we can do.
The Inquest
itself of course, I haven’t yet determined when I will be
resuming, nor have I determined it’s form, nor have I finally
determined whether the Inquest should be before or after
the traditional inquiry but it is almost certain that it will
be after the judicial inquiry and that is why I said that
there will be a considerable delay because I have no
control over the judicial inquiry and to that extent I
am in Justice Taylor's hands but he does understand, he
knows the problem in concluding Inquests cause.
SIR HARRY LIVERMORE.
Mr. Coroner, what is worrying my clients, the families is that they
are anxious to bring their children, husbands home and have them
buried, now when is that going to be possible?
In the case of your clients, now as soon as you wish.
This is the
«hole purpose of the exercise so that the bodies can be moved and
that the burials can take place.
I have had a letter from the
Police Authority which I requested, and they have no objection to
the release of the bodies and I am going to admit that letter
as documentary evidence in every case.
So that the bodies can be, they can take them away to-morrow?
Indeed.
V
S H E F F IE L D
WEDNESDAY F O O TB A L L
rtf
CLUB
VERSUS
L I V E R P O O L V NOTTS FORE
F .A .C U P
SEMI
^ 7 ^
F IN A _
1 5 / 4 / S<?
SATURDAY
3
- 00 -
1 EFION KOF
A
T
E
C
G
H L i 11
1 C T
T
A l _
A V E
G
A
T E
O
F
R
I
:
3
.
5
T
A
^
• i O
0
A
1
4
2
0
L
f.
~
1
A
4
1 /
3 -
-
0
4
0
5
-
4
-
0
0
4 = 3 .
0 . .
0
0
3
'■■■ •
0
0
0
0
0
1 4
2
0
4
"
2
1J
3
1 2 < ? 4
r;
- cr
'
0
r*-
.
.
0
*
0
o
,
o
.■
/. * r
( iji'l
.) m
o
-f
00
(•o
..
J.
V
a
0
_* 1i 0
5
4
c V ? i
o
5
o
4
5
5
0
5
6
0
c r *3
_ J u- '
5
i
O
1. *
^ *i
~
6 1
:-
•
"•
O X
V ‘l
6
4
6
5
6
6
6
o
6
3
7 4
7
7
4
?
7
5
6
TOTALS
„
O
’ .-
0
0
.
. 0
4
.
2
. 5
.
8
2
0
2
7
. 0
2
0
1
P
0
0
1 5 4 0 - -X*
= 7 0 .0 0
0
0
5
0
.
0
0
.
0
0
4 ^ c i
0
.
0
0
4
0
0
.
0
0
3
0
. 0
0
4
.
?
^
6
=
:i
2
1
4
4
2
4
9
4
4
2
1
7
r
0
6
1
0
j
.
iO -0!.’
0. 00
0 .00
0.0 0
■J. oO
o . oo
o . oo
0
. 0
0
4
0
60 3.00
656.00
1 "i3 c!.«_**»
0
b
3 1
0
i - u V * . V '-'
4
4
5
0
0
c ^
Kmi :~i
5
0
0
0
i.M.t
*’
5
0
0
•A „
8
5
2
'•
0
6
3
0
2
7
1
2
0
c.•'»
0 0
4 .
2
-■
7 1
o
.
4
2
•
0
7 0
7
1
5
4
0
0
4
3 0
1-
9
v
0
r
0
o
.
J- .
1
O
7
,
4
1
4 5
1
0
'
4
J;- «i . i
(**,
7
0
2 7 1
t
5
2
3 4
5 7
#
J•V ••
-
* 1 < '. •' ■
* * . -j -ii.
• i
5 1
Or 0 0
,*i
0
i 5
o .oc
0
1 ^ 3 * .
4 s v
7
‘. ".
5 " .'
3 5 * ; .
1 => 3 4
*14
.TE
-LuE.
l
0
0
1 2 4 4 .0 0 '
35c - 00
0
0
0
'& ?6.00
. 0
0
8 c S . 00
. 5
3
3
30627.00
(V
r
S H E F F IE L D
WEDNESDAY F G G T B A LL CLUB
VERSUS
!_I ■ 'E FP O O L V N 0 T T 5
F .A .C U F
SEMI
FORE
F IN A L
15/ 4. c-r
£
L'PD “i Y
”7
-i
L Hr£S'.
TO T A L
1
~ F I O r'i KOr
2
1
3
4
f-iGSTH 5TAND
V i h E-TD CGVEREID
'£ ’"r: ETD 'JMC
&
0
0
5
s..EP = IN3 LANE
1
e
•><£5'r
-
STAND
GATE
TOTAL
A VISE
FF IC E
*T
1 .53
3. 20
1. 8c
•>.
4. 00
3.73
4B=‘6B
2. 42
19906
•5110
4740
-- .*;.rr "z
7 1‘:T &
C .
w O
'
AREA
VALUE
3062/.00
26008.00
8860.50
29-12.50
28152.00
2 1 2 b 0 . 00
1
1
7
8
7
0
. 0
0
c
i
i.
c
IW
t*
o
r
r
* •
I
4
STH STD UNC
<-
W
-J .C
,r
/
i~
TOTALS
o
5
LAKE
LEF’F I N B
5
r
D
E
F
6
0
0
1
0
•-»
0
U
T OTALS .
1
104?
583
4. Ov
4. OO
4. 00
4. GO
4. 00
4. 00
4. 00
7033
4.00
120c- ■
,
1245
4 -324. O V
3 804.00
41 '■?i .00
26152.00
i.
6 WEST STANI
f
4
t
i'1
GATE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lo
TOTALS
CHECK.
T OTAL
BAT E
TOTAL
G m Te
FF.ICE
SATE
V ALUE
2
0
1
^
634
582
754
oO^
784
725
836
665
0. 00
0. '00
0. 00
0 •00
7. 00
7. 00
7.00
7. 00
.i_)ij
0. 00
0. oo
0. 00
5^86 . 0 0
5255 . 0 0
5 852.00
4655.00
.4
5 619
. 3. 76
21230.00
o
*
o
0
it
NORTH STAND
2
CHECK
TOTA L
GATE
0
0
0
4
i
1
0*
4
5
6
0
1
7
jL
s
77
0
0
75
*»n
GATE
TO T A L
1 120
1074
1038
1033
962
1011
7^**7
7 67
13E
195
o
&0
p i
82
'31—
54
S3
3c
o
(j
1i
<*',
0
0
o
o
:*i
i "i
i..
0
(\
C:
i'j
G
O
88
i •* 1.
T 3 T --L .: :
3 sT H
itTD
GAT £
n7
^
a
.iH
CHECK
TGT AL
3 AT E
T OTAL
0
I.'
*0
634
e
r.ris:
Ju'w
T- y
i
TOTALS
0 . GO
0. 00
0 . 00
0. 00
7 .5 0
7 . 50
c . 50
b. 50
4 . 00
4 . 00
0 • 00
0. 00
t"■ t : 1i’i
0 . 00
' \ »i
0 . GO
c - 50
=>.50
"- w
“•i »
GATE
VALUE
0 . .'0
0 . 00
0 . 00
0 . 00
7 2 1 5 .0 0
7 5 8 2 .5 0
4 6 9 3 .0 0
4 9 8 5 .5 0
7 5 2 .0 0
7 8 0 .0 0
>.'■. - C
1j • 'O'0
0 . 00
' } „ ' ‘1i*
»** f -'"lij;
o . oo
0 - O'.1
0 . 0*1’
0 - -X
( : t ;\
3.20
CO- .ERED
0
26a
27
28
28 a
29
30
31
32
GATE
P R IC E
j
I
o
164
505
90
391
502
463
472
37c
0
4740
0
0
(j
o
0
0
0
trA TE
PRICE
G A 'c.
VRLUE.
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
6. So
0. 00
0. 00
17i>B. 00
1696.50
0. 00
0 .00
0. 00
2=32.50
0. 00
0 .00
0» 0 0
246 3.30
1. 86
8860.50
0. 00
1j 1t1•
6.50
6. 50
0. 00
0. 00
0 .0 i
.1
7
URGENT MESSAGE FOR MR G SQUIRES (MEMBER OF JURY)
From Mrs Squires:
The little girl Heeley's heart has started beating very fast.
She is on her way to the Childrens Hospital to see her and
she will meet you there as soon as you can get away.
Time of message:
2.25 pm.
£ HOUSE OF COMMONS
SESSION 1990-91
HOME AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
Second Report
POLICING
FOOTBALL HOOLIGANISM
Volume I
Report together with the
Proceedings o f the Committee
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed
1 February 1991
This
•
time
understanding that no app
contents before the t
in
organisation or person
ubUCATION, BROADCASIT
S rC T S S
o
S S TAPES BEFORE=12 noon on 5
February 1991
£8.70 net
l-I
#
HOUSE OF COMMONS
SESSION 1990-91
HOME AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
Second Report
POLICING
FOOTBALL HOOLIGANISM
Volume I
Report together with the
Proceedings o f the Committee
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed
1 February 1991
LONDON: HMSO
£8.70 net
l- I
SECOND REPORT FROM
The Home Affairs Committee is appointed under SO No 13 0 to examine the expenditure,
administration and policy of the Home Office and associated public bodies.
The Committee consists of 11 Members. It has a quorum of three. U n l e s s the House oAerwise
orders, all Members nominated to the Committee continue to be members of it for the remainder
of the Parliament.
The Committee has power:
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the
House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b)
to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available
or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee s order of reference,
(c) to communicate to any other such committee its evidence and any other documents
relating to matters of common interest; and
(d)
to meet concurrently with any other such committee for the purposes of deliberating,
talcing evidence, or considering draft reports.
The Committee has power to appoint one sub-committee and to report from time to tune the
minutes of evidence taken before it. The sub-committee has power to send for persons, papers and
records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place.
It has a quorum of three.
The membership of the Committee since its appointment on 2 December 1987 is as follows:
Sir John Wheeler
(elected Chairman 9 December 1987)
Mr David Ashby
M r Joe Ashton
(added 18 January 1989)
Mr Gerald Bermingham
Mr David Clelland
(discharged 18 January 1989)
Dame Janet Fookes
M r Roger Gale
Mr John Greenway
Mr Alan Meale
inoo.
(added 19 December 1989)
M r Ivor Stanbrook
Mr Keith Vaz
Dr Mike^ Woodcock
(added 28 April 1988)
M r T o n y Worthington
(discharged 19 December 1989)
The cost of printing and publishing this Report is estimated by HMSO at £6,709.
The cost of preparing for publication the Shorthand Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee was £597.04.
THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Page
Introduction: the background
..............................................................
v
What is the current problem?......................................................................
1. Its e x te n t....................................................................................
2. Its r a n g e ....................................................................................
3. The media
............................................................................
vi
vi
vii
viii
What can
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the clubs d o ? ............................................................................
Facilities for spectators.............................................................
Seating ....................................................................................
Facilities for police....................................................................
Paying for improvements .....................................................
Player b e h a v io u r....................................................................
Match scheduling....................................................................
Bans by clubs on spectators.....................................................
Community Programmes .....................................................
ix
ix
x
xi
xi
xii
xii
xiii
xiv
Police Tactics .............................................................................
.. ..
1. Segregation ........................
..
2. Speedy arrests..............................................................................
3. Intelligence and evidence g a th e rin g ........................................
4. National Football Intelligence U n i t ........................................
5. Are the police too aggressive? ...............................................
6. Inconsistency by the P o lice.......................................................
7. Police/supporter and police/club dialogue................................
8. Police Training
......................................................................
Xv
Xv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xx
Police Numbers and Costs .....................................................................
1. Background ..............................................................................
2. Policing outside the ground.......................................................
3. Policing inside grounds..
(i) Should the clubs pay more?
.................................
(ii) Better administration and fewer
inconsistencies
......................................................
(iii) What costs should be b o r n e ? ................................
(iv) An equitable method of charging .........................
4. Stewarding
..............................................................................
xx
xx
xxi
xxi
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
The Role of Government.............................................................................
1. O ffe n c e s.....................................................................................
2. Penalties for Convicted Hooligans ........................................
(i) Exclusion o rd e rs .......................................................
(ii) Restriction Orders
................................................
(iii) Attendance Centre O rders........................................
(iv) Curfews/electronic tagging........................................
(v) Disposals: general
................................................
3. Alcohol .....................................................................................
4■ Home Office Inspectorate of Constabulary’s r o l e .................
5. International C o-operation.......................................................
xxvi
xxvi
xxviii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxx
xxxi
xxxi
xxxii
xxxii
iv
SECOND REPORT FROM THE HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Page
G.
The Football Licensing Authority..............................................................
1. Background ...............................
2. Membership of the FLA
......................................................
3. The Green Guide and the F L A ...............................................
4. Policing and the FLA: an arbitration role
.........................
xxxv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvi
xxxvii
H.
Conclusion....................................................................................................
xxxviii
I.
Summary of Recommendations
..........................................................
xxxix
................................
xliii
P r o c e e d in g s o f t h e C o m m it t e e r e l a t in g t o t h e R e p o r t
L is t o f W it n e s s e s
..................................................................................................................................
L is t o f A p p e n d ic e s t o t h e M in u t e s o f E v id e n c e
.............................................................
x lv i
M e m o r a n d a o f E v i d e n c e ........................................................................................................................
1
Volume II
M in u t e s o f E v i d e n c e ..................................................................................................................................
A p p e n d ic e s t o t h e M in u t e s o f E v i d e n c e .................................................................................
178
SECOND REPORT
POLICING FOOTBALL HOOLIGANISM
The Home Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:
A. Introduction: the background
1.
Hooliganism has occurred in many forms and in varied contexts over many years’.1 The
Home Office reminded us at the outset of our inquiry that there is very little new under the sun
in the field of anti-social and violent behaviour. A Dutch Chief Constable drew our attention to
the deaths which occurred among spectators at sporting events in Ancient Rome. The origins of
football in this country can be traced back to boisterous and often violent clashes between groups
of partisans. Academic studies conducted by the University of Leicester have shown convincingly
that ‘the values expressed in contemporary hooligan encounters at football and elsewhere can be
shown to be deeply rooted in the British past’.2 Football hooliganism is not a new phenomenon.
2. Several events in recent years have brought the problem into the centre of public debate.
Chief of these was the riot by Liverpool fans at Heysel stadium in May 1985 which led to 39
deaths. Determination that something should be done to exorcise the ghost of Heysel resulted in
the Football Spectators Act 1989, with its controversial proposal for a national membership
scheme. While that proposal remains on the statute book, it has not been brought into force. Just
three months after the Bill had been introduced in the House of Lords, the worst disaster in British
football history occurred at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989 when 95 Liverpool fans were crushed
to death and over 400 injured. The Hillsborough disaster was the subject of an exhaustive inquiry
by Lord Justice Taylor. His report considered what could be done to deal with the problems of
crowd control and hooliganism at sports events, and to improve safety and conditions at sports
grounds. In particular, he was doubtful about the feasibility of the national membership proposal
and concerned that the scheme, rather than ending hooliganism, might actually increase trouble
outside grounds.3
3. Taylor drew attention to the ‘depressing and chastening fact’ that his was the ninth official
report since 1924 which had considered crowd safety and control at football grounds. Previous
reports had gone unheeded, but there was ‘no point in holding inquiries or publishing guidance
unless the recommendations are followed diligently’.4 These earlier inquiries were not exclusively
concerned with hooliganism. Taylor even believed that a ‘preoccupation with measures to control
hooliganism’ had been one of the causes of non-implementation of earlier recommendations.
However, as he recognised, and as the Home Office stressed in evidence,3 hooliganism can be a
threat to safety.
4. In this inquiry, we have chosen to follow up much of the Committee’s recent work on the
police by looking in particular at the way football is policed and how the problei is of hooliganism
are countered. We are concerned with police costs and efficiency and with public order. As Taylor
concluded and the Home Office reminded us, ‘there is no single simple cure for the ills of football
hooliganism’,6 and we do not pretend that our inquiry has uncovered a holy grail which had
eluded those who have considered this matter before. The intention of our inquiry was not to
reheat cold cabbage by again going over all the ground considered by Taylor, but to ensure that
parliamentary scrutiny maintains the pressure to promote better and safer conditions at sports
grounds as Taylor and his predecessors intended.
5. The Committee published a volume of Memoranda in November 1990, and subsequently
took oral evidence on three occasions. Witnesses at the first session represented the Football
Association (FA), the Football League, the Football Supporters’ Association (FSA) and the
National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs and, on the second occasion, the Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police
Federation. At our final oral evidence session, we heard Earl Ferrers, Minister of State at the
Home Office and his officials, as well as Mr Norman Jacobs, Chairman of the Football Licensing
Authority (FLA) and his acting Chief Executive. As part of the inquiry, Members and staff of
the Committee visited the National Football Intelligence Unit (NFIU) and football grounds at
'£v. p. 2.
2The Roots o f Football Hooliganism, p. 241, Dunning, Murphy and Williams, Routledge 1989.
i The Hillsborough Stadium Disaster, Final Report, Cm 962.
4Cm 962, paras. 19-23.
5E v . p. 1.
6E v . p. 6.
•
„
SECOND REPORT FROM
Arsenal, Hampden Park Glasgow, Cardiff City and Millwall. We also paid a short visit to Utrecht,
Milan and Rome. In the Netherlands, we met police officers and government officials, and visite
Utrecht stadium. In Italy, we were privileged to meet both the Minister of the Interior, Mr Scotti,
and the Under Secretary, Senator Ruffino, the Minister who chaired the Committee responsible
for World Cup security. We also met a number of parliamentarians, officials and police officers,
and visited the Olympic Stadium in Rome. We are extremely grateful to our witnesses, those
whom we met on our visits and all others who took so much trouble to help us in our worke
are also grateful to Mr Frank Gregory of Southampton University who gave us specialist advice
during this inquiry.
B. What is the current problem?
1.
Its extent
6.
There is a strong popular association between professional football matches and
hooliganism. Although hooliganism is creeping into other sports. Sir James Anderton, Chief
Constable of Greater Manchester1 speaking on behalf of ACPO, distinguished between unruly
behaviour’ which occurs at many large gatherings and football hooliganism which is organised
by people in a very clever and ultimately criminal fashion’.2 Certainly some of the statistics are
alarming. In England and Wales, around 5,000 officers from 38 forces are deployed on football
Saturdays. In addition, around 1,000 officers police football in Scotland, while British Transport
Police employ 900 officers in football-related work.3 The cost of this police operation i‘ijSf
determine, and is a subject to which we shall return later,4 but must approach £500,000 each
Saturday.5 Taking into account mid-week matches, the annual cost of policing football is at least
£25 million, and is estimated by some to approach £35 million.6 The Audit Commission has
estimated the cost to Home Office forces in England and Wales alone as around £22 million.
7. The NFIU computer lists over 5,000 hooligans in Great Britain. In England and Wales
in the 1989-90 season, 5,945 arrests took place at League matches while 974 supporters were on
9 January 1991 excluded from football matches by court order.8 The Football League asked us
to put the figures in context: attendances have increased in recent years, while the number ot
arrests have diminished. Only about one in 3,000 is arrested at a football match. The arrest
figures are not broken down to distinguish between minor trouble-making and serious crime, but
according to the FSA, only 0.006 per cent of those who attend matches are convicted of violence
- that is, one in 17,000.'°
T able 1"
Year
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
Attendances
Arrests
Arrests as a
percentage o f
attendance
17,383,032
17,968,887
18,477,565
19,466,826
5,531
6,097
6,185
5,945
0.0318
0.0340
0.0337
0.0307
Lord Ferrers also drew our attention to the ‘relatively few hooligan incidents which have taken
place this season’.12
8
Arrests are not restricted to those inside football grounds. A large number of arrests
connected with football hooliganism take place away from grounds. By no means all of these
occur in the immediate vicinity. The NFIU told us that ‘much violence occurs some distance from
‘Then M r James Anderton.
^ 172.
3£v. pp. 3, 20-1.
H o m e Office reckoned the 1988 cost of deploying Home Office forces alone to be between £200,000 and £300,000.
6The Times, 17 November 1990.
7Police Paper 7, para. 40.
8HC Deb 4 July 1990, c. 567w; other figures given to Committee by NFIU.
9In Holland, 1 in 3,500 supporters is arrested.
I0£v. p. 96.
u £v. p. 82 and HC Deb 4 July 1990, c. 567 w.
12Q. 336.
vii
football grounds, sometimes on days when no match is taking place’.1 As ACPO (Scotland)
wrote, it is sometimes difficult to define ‘football related disorder’ due to the occurrence of
incidents at some distance from the venue ...V and Sir James Anderton warned us that effective
policing of matches tended to displace the problem elsewhere.3 This is apparent from figures we
were given in respect of Strathclyde, where a tough policing policy has resulted in a rising number
of arrests outside while inside the number has generally declined.4 In Holland, too, we were told
that better policing inside the grounds had moved the problem elsewhere.
2. Its range
9. ACPO told us3 that those who come to police attention in connection with football
hooliganism include ‘a large number of exuberant youths who display anti-social behaviour
(shouting, swearing, singing etc) while following their football teams, and perhaps gain the odd
conviction for public disorder offences, who may never come to the notice of the police in other
circumstances’ but that there were also highly organised hooligan gangs, with dedicated and
highly disciplined central control. These people
‘invariably commit offences which have no apparent relationship to football, other than
perhaps to finance their football activities, but they also commit many other offences
which although directly football related are not perceived as such. These are usually
committed in the evening after a game in a town nearby, or somewhere in the transit
system many miles from the ground.’
The chilling picture of the determination and organisation of these gangs was corroborated by the
NFIU and British Transport Police in their written evidence.6 ACPO told us that the gangs had
both ringleaders and hangers-on. This general view of gradations of hooliganism is one set out
by Taylor’s predecessor, Mr Justice Popplewell in his report of January 1986 following the
Bradford disaster,7 and was endorsed by Taylor.
10. According to Sir James Anderton, the gangs which associate themselves with football are
‘relatively few in number, but that is not to say th a t... the problem is not a serious one’.8 Our
visit to the NFIU convinced us of this. Much more graphically than the written word, the video
films of violence and robberies and the still photographs of the ghastly injuries inflicted and
malicious weapons used by the gangs demonstrated the outright wickedness of those who
perpetrate organised gang violence. These men are not football supporters but instead, as the
FSA told us, prey upon innocent football supporters.9 They move around the country ‘intent
on causing aggravation wherever they go’, as the Police Federation put it.10 Their violence is not
spontaneous11 and is orchestrated in a sick equivalence to a military strategy. In many instances,
they are responsible for a multiplicity of other non-violent crimes—like shop and car theft—and
exult in a warped heroic status. The organised gangs can exploit the fecklessness and poverty of
imagination and self-discipline of a somewhat wider body of supporters—the ones who might be
described as peripheral hooligans.
11. Both the criminal gangs and the unruly have become leeches battening on to the
professional football event. But the problems they cause would not evaporate if there were no
football. Young men’s aggression and tribalism would be displayed in other contexts. The FA
referred to a ‘general malaise in society’ and claimed that ‘if football were not available then it
is more likely that it would attach itself to some other activity’.12 The Football League also told
us that ‘the hard-core hooligan will act in the way he does whether at a football ground or
elsewhere’. We agree with this judgement. Although the football authorities cannot be absolved
from all blame for hooliganism, they are also the indirect victims of hooliganism themselves.
12. Lord Ferrers referred to wider societal changes which had had unfortunate effects upon
football when he discussed alcohol and what he called the ‘extraordinary upheaval or appearance
xEv. p. 33.
p. 53.
3Q. 170.
2E v .
4£
v.
5E v .
6E v .
p . 21.
pp. 49-50.
pp. 33, 73.
7Cmnd 9710.
8Q. 172.
9E v . p. 95.
10Q. 174.
"Q . 255.
12£ v . p. 77.
Vlll
SECOND REPORT FROM
of lager louts’.1 Alcohol was also emphasised by Taylor, not so much in respect of hardened
hooligans, but as a factor which exacerbated the bad behaviour of peripheral hooligans.2 A wide
cross-section of our witnesses drew our attention to alcohol. Both the Home Office and ACPO
endorsed Taylor’s view,3 while the Scottish Office told us that:4
‘... the single most important factor leading to the reduction and better control of
hooliganism associated with football in Scotland has been the ban on alcohol
introduced in 1980 ...’
We shall return later to consider some measures which may be taken to curb the consequences of
alcohol abuse.3
3. The media
13. To blame football unfairly for more general hooliganism was, according to the Leicester
City FC branch of the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association, a ‘disturbing trend’ fostered
by the media. The symbiotic relationship between the media and hooligans was referred to by
many of our witnesses. As the Home Office said:6
‘The mere presence of cameras, particularly at events like the European Championships
and the World Cup, and the contingents of news reporters apparently unconcerned
with the game itself, may have the effect of encouraging acts of hooligan behaviour.’
The Scottish Office also referred to the media as being ‘excited by football hooliganism’.7
Witnesses inside football were less restrained. The Scottish Football Association wrote of the
‘sensational lies of the tabloids’, the FSA spoke of ‘tensions deliberately created by the media’,
while the F A told us that ‘... prediction of likely disorder virtually tells the potential hooligan what
is expected of him and challenges him to perform’.8We are all aware of some of the absurd and
exaggerated fictions which appear in the popular press. On the other hand, we were reminded by
the Football Writers Association that ‘a past voluntary moratorium by the press of coverage of
football violence was accompanied by an escalation in hooliganism’,9 and we appreciate that the
press can behave very responsibly, as has happened in Scotland10and, as we understand, happens
in Denmark. Nevertheless the fear of crime saps the confidence of citizens as badly as crime itself.
It is not the job of the press to stoke up those fears. We believe that the press ought to exercise
much greater responsibility when reporting football hooliganism.
14. Press coverage of the events leading up to the World Cup in Italy was the apogee of
hooliganism hype. The disinterested observer, both in Britain and Italy, had the impression that
tens of thousands of English marauders were about to descend like second Goths to uproot Italian
civilisation. Some hooligans tried to live up to this image. On one occasion, at Rimini, the Italian
police may have overreacted. We say no more about that incident because of impending legal
action. But other than at Rimini, and an earlier incident in Cagliari, which was successfully
defused by the Italian police, (and, according to the FSA, might have been prevented ‘had FSA
warnings been heeded’),11 ‘the World Cup tournament passed off comparatively peacefully’.12 No
doubt much of this was due to the elaborate pre-planning undertaken by British and Italian
government departments and police forces, but the low level of incidents was also due to the good
conduct of the vast majority of the fans who travelled to Italy.
15. The Popplewell and Taylor inquiries and the evidence which we received all emphasised
that only a tiny minority of those who attend football matches are hooligans. As Popplewell said,
the vast majority of spectators ‘abhor violence and wish only for an afternoon of pleasure at a
football match’. The FSA wrote optimistically about the development of ‘a strong alternative
'Q. 407.
962, p. 9.
3£ v . pp. 2, 45.
4£ v . p. 27.
3See paras. 104 ff.
6E v . p. 18.
1Ev. p. 27.
8£ v . pp. 81, 100, 77.
9E v . p. 105.
10ACPO (Scotland), Ev. p. 54.
11£v. p. 99.
12Home Office, Ev. p. 12.
ix
culture to the aggressive behavioural norms that existed at football a generation ago’.1 But so
long as criminals attach themselves to football, there will be a policing problem at football
matches. We are not as pessimistic as Sir James Anderton, who told us2 that
‘...we will always have a problem akin to football in and around football grounds and
we will always have an associated problem on public transport and in areas akin to
football grounds.’
But we are also realistic enough to accept that football policing will be a substantial commitment
for the police for the foreseeable future.
C. What can the clubs do?
1. Facilities for spectators
16. The Taylor report did not make comfortable reading for the football authorities. The
facilities at many grounds were heavily criticised and the game was accused of suffering from poor
leadership: ‘in some instances’, Taylor wrote, ‘it is legitimate to wonder whether the directors are
genuinely interested in the welfare of their grass roots supporters’.3 Mr Jacobs of the FLA used
the phrase ‘the policy of neglect’.4 There is a pervading impression that soccer stadia are nasty,
cold, wet, windswept places where crowds are herded together on concrete terraces, where the
lavatory facilities are minimal and dirty, where the catering facilities are virtually non-existent,
where, in short, people are treated like animals and consequently, not surprisingly, act like
animals. Even the words used (‘pens’, not ‘enclosures’, for example) show how badly fans are
regarded.5 We questioned our witnesses on the fairness of these accusations and, more
importantly, the steps taken to remedy them since Taylor reported.
17. There was general consensus that the quality of facilities left much to be desired. They
were condemned by one witness from the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs as
‘so barbaric, so primitive, so utterly disgusting’; a Police Federation witness called the vast
majority of facilities ‘abysmal’, and there was support from an FSA witness and from the
Chairman of the FLA for the proposition that bad facilities led, to put it mildly, to truculence by
spectators.6 The Home Office wrote of the football authorities’ ‘crucial role’ in ‘improving the
facilities for spectators and in influencing their behaviour’, while the Scottish Office neatly
demonstrated the chicken-and-egg relationship between hooliganism and facilities:
‘the improvement in behaviour within Scottish stadia is increasingly attracting women
and children back to football. Clubs have reacted well to this and some have provided
family enclosures and better toilet and catering facilities ...’7
Sir James Anderton told us8 that ‘a high proportion of football grounds in t .iis country do not
deserve to be called stadia’, but that ‘more civilised conditions will ultimately produce more
civilised behaviour’. On behalf of the English football bodies, Mr Millichip, Chairman of the FA,
and Mr Fox, President of the Football League, both believed that the Hillsborough disaster had
indeed been a stimulus for improvement by the authorities of the game.9 But there is clearly no
room for complacency.
18. A bad physical environment at football grounds does not merely lead to discomfort and
irritation. It may be dangerous and spark off hooligan incidents. For example, at many grounds
perimeter fencing obscures the view of spectators and when the pitch is further obscured by
segregation fences, fans naturally become frustrated because they cannot see the match for which
they have paid. They crush into parts of the enclosures from which visibility is better, and refuse
to move in the interests of safety. There must be a clear view of the pitch for all. Better ground
design with the interests of fans properly considered may remedy this.10 We recommend a
determined effort by all football elute to make a much higher standard of facilities available to fans.
xEv. p. 96.
2q . 170.
3Cm 962, p. 10.
4Q. 349.
5Q. 361.
6QQ. 154, 197, 194, 362.
1Ev. p. 12, 24.
8Q. 196.
9QQ. 4-5.
,0We shall return later to the role of the FLA in improving grounds.
X
SECOND REPORT FROM
19. Particular concern was expressed during the inquiry about the facilities offered to away
supporters. One of our Police Federation witnesses argued that clubs rather than the police were
making life uncomfortable for visiting supporters, and Mr Jacobs also told us that ‘away
supporters do come in for the hard end of it’.1 Although the Football League told us2 that a
directive had been issued to clubs that they should treat home and away fans alike, the two
supporters’ organisations called not simply for equal price tickets for home and away supporters,
but the assurance that equal facilities were bought with those tickets.3 We endorse this plea, and
recommend that the Football Licensing Authority pay particular attention to ensuring that home and
away fans receive equal treatment at every ground.
2. Seating
20. The most important ground improvement associated with Taylor is the move to all-seater
stadia. Taylor recommended the end of terrace standing as one of the best means of tackling
hooliganism and improving crowd safety. He proposed that the grounds of first and second
division clubs in England and Wales and premier division clubs in Scotland should become
all-seater by the beginning of the 1994-95 season, and that the grounds of other league clubs
should become all-seater by the beginning of the 1999-2000 season.4 For the larger clubs, there
is another cause to introduce all-seater stadia—the international football authorities have ruled
that, from 1993 onwards, all high-risk matches between teams from different countries should be
played at all-seater stadia.3
21. Many of our witnesses from outside football endorsed the seating proposals. The Scottish
Office wrote that
‘... it is difficult to commit an offence of a serious nature from a seated position and the
act of standing up to throw a missile or to gesticulate at opposing supporters is
immediately obvious to the police.’6
and police witnesses also warmly endorsed the all-seater proposal.7 Sir James Anderton believed
that the culture of the sport could be altered by the introduction of seating, though he
acknowledged that there was a ‘pain barrier’ through which supporters would need to go in the
move to all-seater stadia. From inside football, there was more scepticism. Mr Millichip told us
that ‘... a person can be just as big a hooligan when he is sitting down as when he is standing up’,8
while the FSA believed that Taylor’s objectives could be ‘better achieved by creating safe terracing
with strictly limited numbers in terraced areas’.9
22. During the course of our inquiry, an incident occurred at Manchester City’s ground when
a large number of seats were smashed by Leeds United fans. This at least indicated that
considerable thought needs to be given to the design of the hooligan-proof seat, as well as to the
configuration of seats, as was readily acknowledged by police witnesses.10 It also showed that seats
can be a stimulus to hooligans and could possibly be used as weapons, as they were in the riot
at Luton when Millwall played there in March 1985. To install seating in lower division grounds
will be costly and may bring very little reward. The public safety concerns associated with the
packed terraces at major grounds do not exist to the same extent at many third and fourth division
clubs playing in front of sparsely populated terracing. We note that, in Italy, only stadia with a
capacity of more than 10,000 are required to be all-seater. If spectators themselves do not wish
it for the sake of comfort, as some evidence suggests," we see little point in foisting compulsory
seating on clubs which can ill afford the cost and which could spend money more usefully on other
ground improvements. At present no regulations on all-seater stadia have been made.12 Mr Fox
of the Football League suggested that the FLA might be able to look again at the question of
compulsory seating.13 We hope that they will do so. We recommend that the compulsory seating
proposals be re-examined in the case of die smaller clubs.
>QQ. 228, 362.
2Q. 45.
3Q. 161.
4Cm 962, p. 76.
5Q. 25.
6E v . p. 24.
7Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Ev. p. 61; Police Federation, Ev. p. 64; Scottish Police Federation, Ev. p. 67.
8Q. 25.
9E v . p. 99.
10QQ. 183-191.
"Survey of FSA members, published in Football and Football hooliganism in Liverpool, Sir Norman Chester Centre for Football
Research, 1987.
12Q. 356.
xi
3. Facilities for police
23. An important aspect of the facilities of grounds is not appreciated by spectators. These
are the facilities offered to the police. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities (AMA) told
us that ‘poor grounds with inadequate facilities make the police operation more difficult.' Sir
James Anderton also called for clubs to make ‘proper facilities’ available to the police as well as
other agencies, such as St John Ambulance.2 We were told of counting equipment (which should
allow the police accurately to monitor the numbers in the ground) being out of date or
inaccurate,3 and are aware of grossly inadequate control rooms, barely acceptable rooms for
completing arrest formalities or holding prisoners and no facilities to alloW officers to have
refreshment or to use a separate lavatory. Some clubs, as we saw at Arsenal, do provide excellent
facilities for the police and other organisations. Other clubs do not. We believe that it should be
a priority of clubs to provide the police and other organisations such as St John Ambulance with the
facilities which they need to discharge their duties efficiently.
4. Paying for improvements
24. Any football spectator who visits clubs throughout the League realises that there is an
enormous variation in facilities between the rich and successful clubs and some of those struggling
in the lower divisions.4 But even the best is not outstanding. According to the FA, none of the
English stadia, except Wembley, is of the standard necessary for a World Cup competition.5 The
Olympic stadium in Rome is quite unlike anything this country has to offer. The FA estimated
the cost for the full implementation of the Taylor proposals at between £600 and £700 million,
with the most rudimentary improvements costing £300 million.6 Even if the compulsory seating
proposals are modified for the smaller clubs, the bill will still be enormous. Paradoxically,
Taylor’s recommendations would reduce the capacity of stadia, and thus cut clubs’ revenue.
25. In the 1990 Budget, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a cut in Pool Betting
Duty from 42$ per cent to 40 per cent for an initial period of 5 years, provided that the revenue
forgone by the Government was given to the Football Trust to use on improvements
recommended by Taylor. This was intended to channel about £100 million into football over the
five year period, after which the position would be reviewed. The Football League estimated the
new revenue to amount to about £18.5 million per annum.7 The Chancellor also instructed the
I n la n d Revenue to approach football clubs to clarify their eligibility for tax relief for ground
improvements. Despite this government help, clubs ‘are going to have to put in at least £3 for every
£1 that comes from government’ if the minimal improvements proposed by Taylor are to be
introduced.8 Football is a private industry, and should not be dependent on public financing.
Nevertheless, its contribution to our national life should not be underestimated and means that
it deserves some support from Government, just as opera and horseracing do. We recommend that
the Government keep under review the rate of Pool Betting Duty, and, if necessary, decrease the rate
to main1 more money available for ground improvements.
26. It is not our responsibility to suggest other methods by which ground improvements can
be financed. This area was covered in detail by Taylor.9 It is clearly right for clubs themselves
to pay the lion’s share. We were pleased to hear that the Football League is considering diverting
money from transfer fees to ground improvements.10 We were also interested to hear the
Chairman of the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs agree that it would be
feasible for football clubs to share grounds in cities like ‘Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Bristol,
Nottingham’.11 However, we have no illusions about the conservatism of supporters in such
matters. In Utrecht, we saw the way in which the redevelopment of an old stadium had been
funded by the use of some of the space for commercial purposes. Like Taylor, we believe this sort
of opportunity could be embraced by British clubs. Something rather similar has happened at St
■Ev. p. 106.
2Q. 199.
3Police Superintendents’ Association,
4ACPO(S), E v . p. 52.
SQ. 13.
Ev.
p. 57.
XU
SECOND REPORT FROM
Johnstone in Scotland. We add our voice to all those who have called for an imaginative and vigorous
campaign by the football authorities to ensure that the money is raised and the facilities at all grounds
improved to the level of the best
5. Player behaviour
27. There are a number of other areas in addition to physical facilities where the clubs can
help abate the hooliganism problem. Taylor criticised the behaviour of a few players, which was
‘calculated to hype up the fans into hysteria’.1 The Police Superintendents’ Association’s evidence
referred to ‘a minority of professional footballers [who] regularly use obscene and abusive
language and inflammatory conduct which can incite disorder on the terraces’,2 and Sir James
Anderton called for ‘very strong discipline’ to deal with all those who misbehaved, including
players and officials.3 The evidence we received from the Professional Footballers’ Association
(PFA) set out the very sensible agreement reached between the football authorities and the police
about police intervention on the field of play.4 We have no wish to see the police heavy-handedly
trying to prevent bad behaviour by players, but players and officials must be aware that they are
not exempt from the provisions of the criminal law. In normal circumstances* we would expect
the FA to exercise discipline, and we applaud the recent trend to impose tough penalties upon
players, officials and teams who misbehave.s There has clearly been an attempt to meet the
criticisms Taylor made in this area.
6. Match scheduling
28. A further problem can arise if matches are scheduled so that they occur at the wrong place
on the wrong day. A grievous blunder, not a hiccup, as the FA disingenuously described it,6 was
made last season when Leeds played Bournemouth away on the Saturday of the May Bank
Holiday weekend. The police advised against the match taking place on that day (so sure were
they of trouble, that the NFIU dispatched a camera team to film the disturbances they thought
likely), but police advice was not heeded, and serious disorder resulted.7 The then Home
Secretary was clearly angered by what occurred and the Home Office told us8 that he ‘sought and
obtained an agreement from the Football League that they would in future heed the advice of the
police with regard to fixtures with a strong potential for disorder’. However, in England and
Wales, the Football League and ACPO both assured us that in the future the police would take
the lead so far as scheduling was concerned.9 We are glad that these arrangements are now in
place, but regret that they result from an event which should never have occurred. Clubs will
continue to wish to schedule matches in a way which will bring them the most income. There is
a commercial pressure to schedule matches at times which suit broadcasting companies, and we
were told that in Scotland policing considerations came second to these commercial factors.10
Preservation of law and order is more important than club revenues. We recommend that the
football authorities and the police consult one another on match scheduling and heed one another’s
professional expertise.
29. The Police Federation called for matches to be brought within the ambit of Part II of the
Public Order Act 1986 so that the police might apply to the local authority for a match to be
banned. We believe that this is unnecessary, especially as most safety certificates will only permit
a match to take place if it is adequately policed. As Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm George
neatly put it, ‘we cannot ban a match; we can only say we will not police it’.11 We do not see any
need for any further powers to prevent matches taking place.
30. Although we regard the police powers with regard to scheduling as important, we hope
that the police will use them sensibly. The FA told us12 that ‘on occasions it has been felt that
requests for switches have been based on convenience rather than necessity’, while the National
'Cm 962 p. 10.
p. 56.
3Q. 198.
*Ev. pp. 92-3.
SQ. 7.
6E v . p. 76.
1Ev. p. 37.
8£ v . p. 9.
9QQ. 85, 244.
10ACPO(S), Ev. p. 52.
“ Q. 246.
12£ v . p. 76.
2E v .
xiii
ederation of Football Supporters’ Clubs alleged that ‘clubs seem powerless to resist suggested
changes, and the Football League, invited to adjudicate, always sides with the police to protect
u ia r own b a c k s T h e r e are, for example, allegations of matches being scheduled at police
insistence at inconvenient times for away supporters or in a way which maximises police overtime
payments—-or example, an early kick-off on Boxing Day. These suggestions were strongly
repudiated by police witnesses.2 We will refer later to a certain degree of overcaution by the police
as a result of Taylor. We recommend that the police remain alive to the fact that football matches
are.n tended as entertainment for the enjoyment of the maximum number of law -ah id in p fa n s There
must be a good reason for altering the day, venue or time of a g»m»
7. Bans by clubs on spectators
31. A further step a club can take to curb hooliganism is by banning likely troublemakers
rom its ground. The courts have a power upon conviction to impose exclusion orders, a matter
to which we shall return later, but the Home Office reminded us of ‘a club’s own entitlement to
choose whom to admit, or refuse to admit, to their property’.3 During our visit to Glasgow, we
were told that any season-ticket holder at Ibrox who is found guilty of a football related offence
is banned from the ground for life,4 although Scottish police evidence was somewhat ambivalent
on how effective club sanctions against hooligans were.5 The Football League assured us that,
in England and Wales, clubs have been banning people from their grounds for the last four or
nve years at a considerable rate of knots’.6 Clearly the banning of supporters is most practical
u matches are all-ticket and if membership cards are required before tickets can be purchased. It
would also help clubs if they were able to have access to the information held by the NFIU
computer on potential hooligans. We recommend that all names and descriptions of hooligans
against whom high grade intelligence is possessed are passed to clubs concerned by the NFIU via the
local police force’s football liaison officer.
32. A more drastic use of clubs’ power to exclude is found at Luton where all away fans are
banned. The Police Superintendents’ Association’s evidence reflected the view of their
Bedfordshire members that this was ‘... the only truly successful measure against football
hooliganism yet to have been implemented’, and the Police Federation was also enthusiastic.7
The two supporters’ organisations were emphatic that the Luton experiment should not be copied
elsewhere.8 The President of the Football League was also quite opposed to an away supporter
ban.9 We believe that it is neither feasible nor desirable to implement a blanket ban on away
supporters. To do so would amount to little short of an infringement of personal liberty, and
certainly an infringement of the pleasure of tens of thousands of law-abiding fans.
33. Nevertheless, as the Football Writers’ Association argued, ‘the more English fans can be
discouraged from travelling, the better, the cheaper and the less dangerous for our police
personnel’.10 Many supporters believe that the police try to achieve this end by making it very
difficult, inconvenient, expensive, uncomfortable and miserable for the away supporters. All too
often supporters arrive late and miss the kick-off because of delays caused by the police." This
provokes aggression as well as leaving supporters hungry and wet. They suspect that the police’s
long-term aim is to discourage them from attending. The FLA Chairman agreed that ‘away
supporters do come in for the hard end of it’, but ACPO denied that the police would countenance
discriminatory treatment of away supporters and Lord Ferrers said that he would be ‘surprised’
and ‘shocked’ if the police employed such tactics.12 We believe it would be quite wrong for the police
to use tactics against away supporters which had the intention of extending the Luton experiment by
the back door.
34. There are much more positive ways to cut down the number of fans who travel away.
Chief Superintendent Clarkson, the ground commander at Leeds, told us that he was encouraging
'£v. p. 102.
2QQ. 273-276.
3 £ v . p. 5.
4see also Ev. p. 24.
sACPO(S), Ev. p. 54; Scottish Police Federation, Ev. p. 66.
6Q. 30.
7E v . pp. 55 & 64.
*Q. 159.
9Q. 62.
"'Ey. p. 104.
n £v. p. 96.
12QQ. 362, 232, 398.
xiv
SECOND REPORT FROM
Chelsea to relay the potentially troublesome match with Leeds at their own ground on Boxing Day
and ‘only send up those supporters who are really keen to come’.1 But supporters get great
enjoyment from travelling around the country with their team. For fans who do wish to follow
their team away, clubs can offer good value travel facilities and take on more responsibility for
their supporters when travelling away.2
35. It is particularly crucial for clubs to provide comprehensive travel arrangements for fans
wishing to follow their team abroad. The inadequacies of official arrangements have in the past
encouraged many supporters to roam across Europe independently, often without tickets.3 The
case for the proper stewarding of away fans was espoused by the European Convention on
Spectator Violence4 (which we shall discuss later) and endorsed by the National Federation of
Football Supporters’ Clubs, who argued in their evidence that ‘the best protection against future
problems abroad is for spectators to travel only in properly supervised self-stewarded groups.
The adoption of a more positive and responsible attitude to away travel by the clubs would, we
believe, go some way towards expunging the memory of drunken Englishmen wreaking violent
havoc on cities across Europe, an image that has so tarnished England s reputation.
Encouragingly, this new approach was evident in the preparations for Aston Villas and
Manchester United’s away matches in Europe this season. We hope that this example will be
followed in future and be rewarded by similar success. We recommend that clubs whose teams are
engaged in European competitions organise attractive, good value and well-stewarded package deals
for travelling supporters, and that match tickets are available only through these arrangements.
8. Community Programmes
36. The development of community programmes has been a recent ambitious attempt by
some clubs, supported by the Professional Footballers Association, to tackle the problem of
hooliganism at it roots.6 Similar programmes have been promoted in the Netherlands. By
forging closer links between the club and its local community, the aim is to build up mutual
respect, to encourage locals to take pride in their club and ultimately to instill a greater sense of
responsibility and an improvement in behaviour. The Scottish Police Liaison Unit noted that
some degree of self policing had already been achieved in the case of the supporters following the
Scottish national team: ‘Scottish supporters themselves were delighted that fellow supporters were
behaving well and there was a keen spirit to prove themselves, as they believed ‘the best behaved
fans at the World Cup.’7 We recognise that it is unrealistic to expect this attitude to permeate
the country in the short term, but the community schemes represent worthwhile initiatives. The
FSA told us ‘the success to date is difficult to measure but statistics seem to show that those clubs
with community schemes have a lower arrest rate than those without.’8 The police at Millwall,
a club that has enjoyed energetic support from the local authority in pioneering the community
scheme, shared the view that its benefits had been significant, though incalculable. After an
initially circumspect reaction to the concept of community programmes, clubs have gradually
begun to appreciate the value of these schemes and the majority of clubs now have some sort of
programme in place. However, there are still a significant number of clubs that have not been so
positive. We recommend that all League clubs establish community programmes.
37 New links with the community could be complemented by a more participatory role for
the supporters in the affairs of their club. The current ‘them and us’ mentality means that fans
resent the way they are treated by clubs, and have little cause, for example, to respect club
property. The tubs of geraniums all around the Olympic stadium in Rome would be unthinkable
in England. As long as the fans are not represented in any formal way at a decision-making level,
the pressure for improved facilities and conditions at grounds is missing an important element.
The FSA argued, perhaps not surprisingly, that supporter representation at all decision-making
levels within the game was the way to achieve better value for money for the spectator.9 However,
when questioned on the exact form that this representation should take, no consensus emerged
from the supporters’ organisations, and there was some scepticism as to the willingness of clubs
to give supporters a foot in the door.10 The precise nature of representation is clearly a matter
'Q. 277.
2See ACPCKS), Ev. p. 54.
3See Hooligans Abroad, John Williams et al, Routledge 1989.
^
.
4European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in particular at Football Matches, p.4.
$Ev. p. 102, para.5.
6E v . p. 91.
1Ev. p. 7.
8 £ v . p. 98.
9QQ. 141-142.
I0QQ. 143-151.
XV
for the supporters themselves to negotiate with the clubs, but we agree with Mr Garrett of the FSA
that where decisions are being made which directly affect supporter’s interests, then they should
at least be consulted.’1 We shall take this point further when we come to consider the matter of
supporter representation on the FLA. However, we recommend that the football authorities and
individual clubs should establish regular liaison and dialogue with the supporters’ organisations.
D. Police Tactics
1. Segregation
38. The principal police tactic for preventing trouble at and around football matches is
known as ‘policing by containment’.2 This was described by the Home Office3 as ‘escorting
segregated supporters to and from the ground, maintaining the strict segregation of rival fans at
the ground and using fencing within the ground to control the movement of supporters’. Strict
segregation is normal in both Italy and the Netherlands. The advantages of segregation are
obvious: rival gangs can be kept apart and law-abiding supporters feel the security of knowing
that they cannot easily be set upon. Sir James Anderton was quite clear that ‘were we to abandon
all forms of segregation, then certainly we see no prospect of the police being able to contain the
disorder’.4
39. The disadvantages of segregation are also plain. These were stated by the NFIU. First
of all, segregation
‘creates an arena for tribalistic posturing, chanting and threatening, the participants
safe in the knowledge that no matter how provocatively they behave towards their
opponents they are in no personal danger as the police lines and stadium fixtures will
protect them’.
This effect, of accentuating rivalry and fuelling aggression were recognised by Taylor and in the
Home Office evidence to us. ACPO, too, spoke of a ‘warlike’ atmosphere.3 According to the
NFIU, a second problem with segregation is that it is ‘extremely costly in police time and finance’.
Thirdly, it has ‘displaced rather than removed the problem’.6 A fourth argument was adduced
by supporters organisations—that the corralling of fans was an affront to their dignity.7
40.
The FSA told us that their organisation had voted overwhelmingly to press for
non-segregated areas at matches, and they and the National Federation of Football Supporters’
Clubs both favoured a gradualist approach to desegregation, perhaps b e g in n in g with f a m ily areas
at grounds.8 There are imaginative schemes such as that at Stoke City where young supporters
of Stoke and their opponents may spend all weekend together. This promotion of contact between
younger fans of different clubs was also enthusiastically endorsed by the police and clubs in the
Netherlands. It would be naive to suppose that gang cultures can be immediately broken down
by this sort of initiative, but we see some cause for optimism in the evidence we received from the
supporters that the tribalism of soccer can be undermined: after all, rugby league and rugby union,
where passions and club loyalties run equally high, have never been segregated.9 The Football
League was cautious. They told us that there did not appear to be any opportunity for relaxing
segregation at present, but that ‘this must be the long-term aim of all concerned’.10 We recognise
that a majority of spectators may wish to watch a match with other supporters of the same side,
but this should be a matter of choice rather than necessity. We recommend that gradual but steady
progress towards desegregation should be the aim of police and rljihs2. Speedy arrests
41. It is important for police manpower to be deployed as cost-effectively as possible. There
are a number of ways in which this can be done. Taylor referred to the tendency in England (in
‘Q. 143.
increasingly this tactic should become more refined in its application as greater use can be made of pre-match information and
intelligence from the NFIU.
3£
v.
p . 8.
4Q. 249.
5£ v . pp. 33, 8, 46.
6 £ v . pp. 33 and 39.
1Ev. p. 97.
8£ v . p. 99; QQ. 136-139.
9Q. 249.
XVI
SECOND REPORT FROM
contrast to Scotland) not to arrest offenders but to eject them from grounds. Partly, he believed,
this was due to a non-confrontational approach, but partly because of the length of the arrest
procedures. He concluded that ‘it cannot be a good ground for declining to make an arrest that
one cannot spare an officer to do it’, and he recommended streamlined arrest procedures.1 The
Committee was most impressed by the quick and efficient arrest procedures in Glasgow. In
England and Wales, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) no doubt limits the police
freedom to manoeuvre. But we are certain that Taylor would have been well aware of the
restrictions of PACE. We note that ACPO is awaiting feedback on a discussion paper on
‘practical ways to reduce police officers’ ‘committed’ time during arrest’.2 There was general
agreement among supporters that, when crimes are committed, it was the job of the police to
arrest those responsible.3 As we shall argue later, we believe that the police role inside football
grounds should increasingly become policing, not stewarding. When offences are committed
which warrant arrest, the offender ought to be arrested, although ejection remains useful for the
punishment of more trivial offences, particularly amongst younger, impressionable fans whom it
may be counter-productive to prosecute. We urge ACPO to come forward speedily with the new
arrest procedures which Taylor recommended a year ago.
3. Intelligence and evidence gathering
42. Taylor also commended Closed Circuit Television (CCTV). This has been a great success
story. All 92 club grounds now have CCTV cameras inside the ground, and most have them in
the vicinity also. Costs of installing and uprating equipment have been met by the Football
Trust.4CCTV is helpful in allowing the police to monitor safety, but the police believe it also acts
as a deterrent against hooliganism.5 According to the Football League6
‘it has made a remarkable difference to the behaviour and control inside grounds. It
is probably the one single thing that has created a good environment inside grounds and
a safe environment’.
The Home Office told us7 that ‘analysis of film by intelligence officers after matches can reveal
association between hooligan groups, breaches of exclusion orders, and criminal offences
unrecognised at the time. Video evidence can be crucial in securing convictions’. What we have
seen at matches and at the NFIU strongly corroborates this view. Developments must not be
allowed to rest where they now are. Video equipment needs constant updating and maintenance.
We heard some complaints from officers at grounds that the funds were not available for this. We
recommend that the Home Office should continue to monitor developments in video technology, and
the Football Trust continue to make money available for state-of-the-art equipment to be installed.
43. CCTV is one of the primary means of gathering intelligence. Intelligence is vital in the
fight against hooliganism. The police have for some time had a network of football liaison officers
whose basic task is to provide information to other forces on the number of travelling supporters,
their routes and means of travel. ACPO referred to the ‘vital link’ between different forces’
football liaison officers.8 The NFIU made a distinction between this information exchange and
intelligence gathering9 which is more concerned with ‘identities of individuals and known
associates, to strategies and plans of those involved, and to weapons and means of concealment’.
In addition to the use of CCTV, surveillance, undercover operations and the use of away ‘spotters’
are means of gathering this intelligence. This work can best be co-ordinated at the local level by
a dedicated intelligence officer. The Committee is convinced that the intensive gathering and sifting
of intelligence is the most effective means of dealing with the menace of gang hooliganism and
recommends that each force appoints a full-time football intelligence officer for each League club in
its area.
44. Spotters are officers who know who the potential hooligans are among their teams’
supporters. As well as working at home matches, they travel to away games and assist the local
‘Cm 962, para. 261.
2Ev. pp. 50, 7.
p. 100; QQ. 164, 165.
4The Football Trust was set up in the mid 1970s in order to improve facilities at all levels of the game. Its principal functions
are to allocate grants to clubs for anti-hooligan measures such as closed circuit television and for ground improvements. It has
provided finance for the Sir Norman Chester Institute for Football Research at Leicester University and assists many clubs with
the cost of policing. The Trust is funded largely by the pools companies but also receives grants from the Football Association.
5ACPO(S), Ev. p. 55.
6Q. 21.
1Ev. p. 9.
8 £ v . p. 46.
9Ev. pp. 34f.
3£ v .
x v ii
police force. Sometimes they make their presence very obvious—perhaps by appearing in uniform
at the game. Trouble makers from, for example, Cardiff are unsettled in Hartlepool if they see
South Wales officers they know at the ground. We are sure that the spotter system deserves the
support of all police forces. Some forces may not have a hooliganism problem among their own
supporters, and do not wish to send spotters away with their team. However, we believe that any
force should be prepared to welcome the presence of officers who travel from forces which believe
that their hooliganism problem warrants the use of spotters.
45. We are also sure of the value of covert operations in which ‘officers infiltrate hooligan
groups and collect evidence over a long period before mounting major operations simultaneously
to arrest those against whom evidence has been collected’.1 There have been some aborted cases
which have received considerable publicity, but we understand that these debacles resulted from
the use of poorly prepared officers. As ACPO told us, ‘such operations require high calibre,
experienced staff, and are complex and costly to mount. Rules of evidence must be adhered to
and close supervision maintained’.2 They also stressed the vital importance of close liaison with
the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in these operations.3 We ourselves emphasised the
importance of police/CPS liaison in our inquiry into the CPS last session,4 and we are delighted
to see this sort of contact between prosecutors and police from the very beginning of an
investigation. The CPS will be able to ensure that the police case is one which should stand up
in court and secure the conviction of those against whom these very difficult covert operations are
mounted.
4. National Football Intelligence Unit
46. The NFIU was created in October 1989, and became operational in March 1990 to give
the ‘national system of intelligence gathering essential coherence’.5 The main aims of the unit
were set out in its evidence to us. In essence, they are:
(i) to provide a central point for the collation, analysis and dissemination of intelligence,
and for the better co-ordination of police operations, in relation to serious and
persistent football hooligans/gangs, especially those who travel throughout the United
Kingdom or abroad;
(ii) to promote effective collation of intelligence by local forces and ensure compatibility
between systems used at local and national level. (Members of the Unit may visit
forces, on request, to assist in establishing intelligence operations and to advise on best
practice);
(iii) to provide a channel for communication with foreign police forces for such intelligence
and for traffic information;
(iv) to assess the extent and nature of football hooliganism and its criminal associations
nationally;
(v) to provide technical and some operational support regarding the use of optical evidence
gathering equipment, the analysis of video tapes and the preparation and presentation
of optical evidence before the courts.
47. The typical way in which the Unit operates was described by ACPO:6 details (including
photographs) of targets who are persistent hooligans are collected by local football intelligence
officers and forwarded to the NFIU. The NFIU checks the veracity of the information and
reliability of the source. The data are entered on the computer, and checked regularly for
relevance and currency. The NFIU then forwards information both about particular games, or
more generally about a recently identified trend—for example, types of weapon or new means of
transport—to the appropriate police force. The Unit has excellent computer technology and can
produce high definition images of its targets on VDU’s or as photographs. The Police
Superintendents’ Association praised N FIU’s “resolve, commitment and efficiency’.7 Its work is
'Home Office, Ev. p. 9.
2Ev. p. 47.
3Q. 252.
*The Crown Prosecution Service, Fourth Report, Session 1989-90, HC 118, para 109.
5NFIU, E v. p. 34.
6 £ v . p. 51.
x v iii
SECOND REPORT FROM
very highly regarded by the operational officers we met in different parts of the country, and we
were most impressed by the quality both of the staff and the equipment when we visited the Unit.
We believe that the NFIU is a fine example of police work sensibly co-ordinated on a national basis.
48. There are, however, a number of areas in which the N FIU ’s work needs further support.
First of all, we were able to see that not all police forces are diligent about furnishing the Unit
with the data, such as post-match reports, which it needs. Sir James Anderton was rather
circumspect in answering a question on this matter, pleading that these were still early days for
the Unit, and that intelligence would only be passed by police officers when they were happy with
its destination.1The NFIU is dependent upon the raw information it receives, and it is especially
important for its work that a full-time football intelligence officer is appointed for every League
club. We recommend that ACPO, ACPO (Scotland), the Home Office and Scottish Office monitor
the performance of all police forces in their dealings with NFIU and ensure that, where there are
lapses, they are vigorously brought to the attention of the Chief Constable concerned, since this
effective relationship bears directly upon the proper use of police resources.
49. A second problem is the level of resourcing of the Unit. When their written evidence was
submitted, the NFIU argued that their budget was ‘wholly inadequate’ and this point was
repeated by Sir James Anderton.2 Lord Ferrers told us ‘we have gone out of our way to make
sure that they have sufficient funds’,3 and when we visited the Unit in early December, we were
told that sufficient funds had indeed by then been provided. We were told that the Unit needed
one further police officer and one further civilian. We trust that the Home Office will regard
sympathetically the need for adequate staff and resources for the Unit: it would be a false economy
to do otherwise. We recommend that the Government meet all reasonable demands made by the
NFIU for resources.
50. Both ACPO (Scotland) and the Scottish Association of Police Superintendents argued
that it might be of value to have a Scottish officer attached to the Unit (which at present is headed
by a Superintendent from the Greater Manchester Police and is staffed by officers from the
Metropolitan Police, a variety of English provincial forces and the British Transport Police).4 Sir
James Anderton was sympathetic to this proposition,5 and we recommend that consideration
should be given to the appointment of a Scottish officer to the Unit.
5. Are the police too aggressive?
51. It is only too easy to be sympathetic to the police’s position at football matches. As the
FA said:
‘after years of being insulted, spat upon, and even assaulted as well as having their leave
cancelled and personal arrangements upset, there is not unnaturally an increasing
antagonism [by the police] towards football supporters as a whole and visiting fans in
particular’.6
However, as the Crewe Alexandra branch of the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association
wrote, ‘police attitude can make a tremendous difference to the way things go at a game as
sometimes they can actually trigger situations’.7 We were impressed by the moderate tone of the
evidence of the FSA on this matter. They recognised that ‘many officers do an exceptional job
in often stressful circumstances’ but they told us that ‘fans often feel as if they are treated with
far less respect and with far less dignity than they would expect in other walks of life’. They had
conducted a survey of their membership which showed that
‘generally speaking, supporters believe that the police are unsympathetic to supporters’
complaints, poor at isolating hooligans from ordinary fans, do not do all they can to
counter racist and obscene chanting, police away fans worse than home fans, can be
over-aggressive and inconsistent’.8
52. Sir James Anderton readily conceded that incidents occurred when individual police
officers were ‘less than sensible’ in their handling of events,9 and Assistant Chief Constable
'Q. 283.
p. 34; Q. 286.
3Q. 399.
4 £ v , pp. 54, 60.
5Q. 284.
2E v .
6E v. p . 75.
1Ev. p. 90.
8 E v . pp. 97-99.
9Q. 222.
x ix
Malcolm George assured the Committee1that ‘if away fans are treated in a less courteous way,
for whatever reason, then my Association or the police service in general certainly would not
countenance that under any circumstances’. We welcome this, and we have ourselves seen police
officers behaving with absolute propriety, and indeed friendliness to visiting fans. As one of our
witnesses from the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs commented ‘at some
grounds, the police are absolutely fantastic, they really are’.2 This Committee has a high regard
for the professionalism of the police, and for the senior and junior officers we have met who are
concerned with the policing of football. Videos we have seen of incidents at matches leave us in
no doubt that the police have good cause to feel threatened by some of those who go to football
matches. But it is important for police officers as for the general public to appreciate that the
overwhelming majority of fans, home and away, are law-abiding and have a right to be treated with
respect and dignity by the police.
6. Inconsistency by the Police
53. A particular complaint made to us often was that the different police forces and, within
police forces, the different police ground commanders were inconsistent. A variety of witnesses
complained of these inconsistencies. The FSA told us that ‘acceptable behaviour at one ground
could be an arrestable offence at another’; the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs
thought that, if anything, the Taylor Report had exacerbated differences; the Association of
Football League Referees and Linesmen called for a ‘greater consensus’ in police practice, and the
Aston Villa branch of the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association told us that
‘it is very obvious that different police forces adopt different attitudes and this can
create problems both for the travelling or occasional supporter and for individual
clubs’.
Examples of variation within forces were given graphically by Mrs Hartland of the National
Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs, and another witness from the Federation, who had
done duty as a Special Constable at Wembley, also told us that different ground commanders had
different approaches to policing the same ground. This point was confirmed by Bolton
Wanderers’ staff when they wrote that ‘new match Commanders are running the matches. Each
one appears to have his own method of policing’.3
54. Unsurprisingly, an alternative view was presented by the police. Sir James Anderton
expressed himself strongly in favour of flexibility; he thought that if ‘one particular force or
ground commander adopts a slightly more heavy-handed approach’ then this was ‘usually based
on very hard experience’, and he told us: ‘we do have to be flexible and we cannot create ground
rules which would be automatically applicable to every situation’.4 The police call for flexibility
was endorsed by Lord Ferrers, who set his face against any attempt to impose uniformity.5
55. In another context, the Chairman of the FLA told us that ‘every ground is a different
place, and every ground has its own ethos, its own supporters, its own history’.6 The tough
approach of the police in Glasgow would not be appropriate in Torquay, and, as one of the FSA
witnesses, who was a serving Merseyside officer, told us ‘what might be considered profane and
obscene in rural Sussex, is part of the every day vocabulary in down town Liverpool’.7 Policing
Wimbledon may not be the same as policing Chelsea, just as the streets of Brixton are policed in
the same manner but with a different sensibility from the streets of Hampstead. Individual ground
commanders should know their supporters and their grounds and police them accordingly. There
is, of course, always room for individual commanders to learn from others, and the conferences
of commanders and national training courses will help spread best practice. Nevertheless
individual fans should know as far as possible what to expect when they attend a match. Fans
should be aware of the sorts of activity which are unacceptable, and of the way in which they can
expect to be treated by the police. For this reason, we recommend that ACPO and ACPO(S)
initiate discussions between the police, supporters’ organisations and the Football Licensing
Authority with the aim of preparing a national statement of good practice for police to follow when
dealing with supporters. We further recommend that individual Chief Officers should ensure that
individual grounds are policed on different occasions so far as possible in the same way.
‘Q. 232.
2Q. 117.
96, 102, 178; QQ. 106-7, Ev. p. 90.
4QQ. 220-6.
5QQ. 338, 395.
6Q. 380.
7Q. 99.
3E v . p p .
SECOND REPORT FROM
XX
7. Police/supporter and police/club dialogue
56. The police also have a duty to promote dialogue with the football authorities and football
spectators. A great deal has already been achieved. The Football League told us that liaison and
co-operation’ between clubs and police had ‘increased dramatically and NFIU wrote of a good
relationship between them and the FA and League.2 The AMA told us that co-operation was
generally good with the wealthy clubs.3 However the Police Superintendents Association pointed
out that there was a conflict of interest between clubs and police, and much yet remains to be
attended to’.4 We endorse the need for continued constructive dialogue between ACPO and the
NFIU and the national football authorities, and between each individual club and the local ground
commander.
57. It is rather more difficult for the police to be sure that they are hearing the opinions of
all spectators. The FSA was critical of the ‘lack of football supporters in senior management in
the police’.5 We suspect that this is unfair. Nevertheless, the police can do a great deal to improve
liaison with fans by establishing close contact with the two national supporters organisations, the
FSA and the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs. The Home Office and ACPO
told us of regular liaison between the organisations and the police at a national level,6 and the
British Transport Police have organised bi-monthly meetings.7 Liaison at the local level has not
been so successful, and there was particular criticism of some Midlands police forces for
unwillingness to co-operate with supporters’ organisations or ever to meet them.8 We took this
matter up with Sir James Anderton, who assured us9 that ACPO was ‘in the process of advising
all chief constables and all ground commanders and force football liaison officers of the local
points of contact with the representatives of the Football Supporters’ Associations’. We welcome
this move, and recommend that all chief officers ensure that there is a regular system of liaison
between supporters’ organisations and local ground commanders.
8. Police Training
58. If best practice so far as supporter liaison is concerned were spread throughout the
country, there would be little cause for complaint. This is true of very many areas of policing.
For this reason, we have always endorsed the need for a first-rate system of national police
training.10 We were pleased to hear of the work at the four national centres for the regular training
of ground commanders, and of other initiatives in this area, including the work of the N FIU in
helping this training process.11 We expect this momentum to continue in the future.
E. Police Numbers and Costs
1. Background
59. The criticisms of the police which the Taylor report contained have caused a major
re-assessment of the police role at matches. No police commander wishes to be condemned at a
future inquest or inquiry for not having implemented the Taylor recommendations. A natural
reaction by police commanders has been to increase the numbers of police officers at grounds. The
Football League referred12to ‘... a more inflexible attitude being adopted by some senior officers
resulting in the use of more officers than might hitherto have been the case, and the Leicester
Football Club branch of the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association13told us that ‘the only
danger now is the natural one of over-policing’. We are aware of apparently ludicrous levels of
policing: one of our Members, for example, witnessed nine police guarding two Torquay
supporters at Halifax.
60. The police presence costs a great deal of money, as we mentioned earlier.14 The obvious
question arises of who should pay: is the policing of football part of the police s public
{Ev. p. 83.
2Ev. p. 37.
3£ v .
p. 106.
*Ev. p. 55.
5Q. 116.
6 £ v . pp. 9, 51.
1Ev. p. 71.
t Ev. p. 98; QQ. 112-5.
9Q. 222.
10Higher Police Training and the Police Staff College, HC 110, Third Report, Session 1988-89.
“ QQ. 305-6; Ev. p. 39; QQ. 393-4.
l2Ev. p. 85.
13E v . p. 87.
14see para 6.
th e
HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
xxi
responsibility for the preservation of law and order and therefore a proper c arge upon e
taxpayer and community charge payer, or should the cost of policing fall upon t ose P^va e
individuals and bodies which benefit from the game, that is the clubs and the fans.
oo
is
to pay for its policing, what contribution should it make, what can be done to cut down e cos ,
and what power should football have to regulate the cost?
2. Policing outside the ground
61.
It was accepted by our witnesses that the costs of policing outside grounds was a general
charge upon the public.1 It is perhaps most obvious in the case of the British Transport m ice,
where we were told that ‘football duties have serious resource implications and account tor an
appreciable part of the Force’s overall budget’, but that it was ‘unlikely’ that British Rail made
any profit from its football-related business. The cost of policing football trains is thus a charge
upon British Rail and ultimately upon ordinary railway passengers.2 In the case ot Home umce
police forces, the cost of escorting fans from city centres to matches, dealing with match-related
traffic, sending spotter officers to away matches, preventing crime and disorder in city centres atter
games and a host of other activities which are football-related are met from the forces own
budgets. As Sir James Anderton told us:3 ‘if you look at the total cost of the police in the
community at most of our games, the average game, we only ever recover about 30 per cent ot
the total cost of policing from that particular club’. It would not be feasible to apportion these
charges to clubs, and we recommend no change in current arrangements for paying or
football-related policing outside and away from football grounds.
3. Policing inside grounds
(i) Should the clubs pay more?
62. The costs of policing inside grounds have, however, become a matter of much greater
controversy Section 15 of the Police Act 1964 allows for the provision at a chief constable s
discretion of what are called ‘special police services’ within his force area at private premises
subject to the payment of a charge determined by the Police Authority. S m ikrprovisionsappy
in London and in Scotland. This is the basis under which the police charge for their presence
at a variety of events, from private dances to airports. It is also under this section that soccer
clubs are charged for the policing inside their grounds.
63. Taylor discovered that there was wide variation in the way in which section 15 ch^rges
were assessed.4 He thought that a ‘more consistent and businesslike approach should be
adopted, and recommended that ‘police authorities should review the charges they make to clubs
for the costs of policing inside grounds so as to ensure that realistic charges are made. TheHo
Office should take steps to ensure consistency of practice, subject to local discretion and the nee
to have regard to local circumstances’. In July 1990, the Home Office issued a draft circular which
advised police authorities to recover as far as practicable the full costs of providing police officers
inside grounds.5 As Lord Ferrers told us,6 ‘it is our view at the Home Office that P °^ in g °f
football matches within the football stadium should be paid for and should be paid for at the full
cost’.
64.
The view of central government was expressed in the circular in the following terms.
‘It has been the view of successive Governments since 1968 that the costs of special
services should be paid in full by those using the service and that no part of these costs
should be allowed to add to the general level of police expenditure and thus to the burdens
of taxpayers or ratepayers. Charges should be reviewed and adjusted as necessary at
least annually. The aim in principle should be to recover the full cost of those police
officers who are deployed at football matches solely within the ground.
and the draft circular made the following recommendations:
(a) The aim in principle should be to recover the full costs of all police officers deployed
to duties solely within the ground at football matches.
‘Football League, Q. 55; Lord Ferrers, Q. 337.
2Ev. pp. 69, 74.
3Q. 261.
4Cm 962, para 210.
5E v. p . 7.
Q. 337.
x x ii
SECOND REPORT FROM
(b) Charging policies should be reviewed to ensure that there is a direct link between
deployment and charges.
(c) In cases where it would clearly be unrealistic to require a club to meet the full costs of
policing inside the ground, local discretion may be exercised to reduce the scale ot
charges.
(d) It should, however, be made clear in such cases that the club will be expected to take
active steps (eg the provision of more effective stewarding arrangements) to reduce e
levels of policing needed inside the ground.
Comments which have been received on the draft are currently under consideration in the Home
Office.1
65.
While the Home Office draft circular was out for consultation, the Audit Commission
published in November the seventh of its occasional Police Papers, entitled Taking Care of the
Coppers: Income Generation by Provincial Police Forces.2 The paper argued that provincial police
forces were ‘overlooking potentially significant sources of income’ by undercharging private
bodies for police work, by confused charging policies and by poor administration of the charging
process. The Commission called for greater consistency and central guidance. Special attention
was drawn to the costs of policing football matches, and it was estimated that provincial police
forces subsidised football ‘by well over £2 million a year’. Hourly rates for officers varied between
forces from £18 to £26 and the number of spectators per officer ranged from 20 to 320. In one
case 101 officers were deployed and 7 paid for. The combination of these cases meant that charges
per spectator in the 1988-89 season varied by a factor of 9 between clubs. In December 1990,
the Football Trust published new figures for the costs of policing league football matches in the
1989-90 season. Charges per spectator ranged from 80p at Millwall to lOp at Preston North End.
The charge at Sheffield Wednesday (which was then in the First Division) was 16p. Working on
the premise that ‘it is a matter of good practice to charge the full cost for resources , the Audit
Commission argued that ‘it is important ... that clubs are charged the proper price . ine
Commission did, however, acknowledge that there ‘were some major issues of principle about the
boundaries of private and public service’. It is clear that one aim of the Paper was to stimulate
a debate as to what the core public role of police forces should be.
66. There has thus been pressure from a number of directions which would result in football
paying more for its policing. That it should do so was endorsed by a number of our police
witnesses. The Police Superintendents’ Association told us that
‘police will argue that they are forced to commit resources to support the private
industry of football to a level which would be seen as quite inappropriate were it to be
envisaged in connection with any other branch of the leisure or entertainment business.
and the Police Federation called for full re-imbursement of the costs of officers drafted into
grounds.3 Some witnesses from inside the game also acknowledged the case for paying more. For
example, the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association at Leicester City Football Club told
us that ‘... we have been getting policing on the cheap in the p a s t...
(ii) Better administration and fewer inconsistencies
67. There are a number of threads in the argument which need to be distinguished. First of
all, the Committee entirely supports the Audit Commission’s pressure upon the police to
introduce sensible financial management procedures and to look carefully at the administrative
arrangem ents for the charges they collect from football clubs and others. It is in no-one s interest
for money to be wasted by sloppy administrative processes.
68. The Committee also supports Taylor, the Home Office and the Audit Commission in their
call for greater consistency between forces in the methods of charging. This was also an aim of
a number of witnesses from within the game. The Football League Executive Staffs’ Association5
>HC Deb 10 December 1990, col. 247.
2published by HMSO.
3£V. pp. 55 and 62; Q. 270.
4E
v.
p . 88.
5/;v. p. 87.
XX1U
told us that their members ‘believe that policing charges
which would apply to all League clubs’, and the Association’s Sheffield Wednesday branch argued
that standardization was the only equitable way of ensuring that all clu s w
q
.
Support for greater consistency also came from the Professional Footballers' Assoc.at.on and the
Football League.2 We endorse the proposal for a consistent national charging poll y.
69. However, as the Football League have argued in a letter to the 1then
Secrettary of
7 November, which was copied to us,3 the Police Act 1964 a P P e a ^
;
e. f ^
^
Authority to determine the level of charges. Without amending the Act it will not be possiDie
a mandatory system of changing. The Home Office’s ^ Ungne*
exceptions to the principle of full economic charging also opens the way for continuing
inconsistencies.
(iii) What costs should be borne?
70.
The best way to avoid these inconsistencies will be by the adoption of a
meets the approval of all those involved. It was clear from our evidence from the clubs and
spectators that an agreed formula cannot involve full economic costing- The
charges which would have to be met are qurte staggering we we e to l dt h at ,n .t a c u e tf U tt
Rotherham vs Wigan fixture the police account was £ 1 0 2 5 in 1 9 8 8 / 9 , £ 1 5 3 7 i n
6 .
and S i rise to £ 6 4 3 4 (in present day terms) in 1 9 9 4 .= According to the Football Trust n
1 9 8 9 / 9 0 charges rose by 4 2 . 5 per cent compared with the 1 9 8 8 / 8 9 season
P.
7
the case of the First Division. Increases of this magnitude are rightly described
g g
t t e ^ t S S i o n ’s arguments would appear to lead to the
afford to pay for policing, that is bad luck and they should go to the
T t a isJtaargum ent
o f acco u n ta n ts We do not think that it is practical politics: a town cannot be deprived
......
dub because the bill for policing bankrupts it. It would hardly be conducive to gCKKi police/community
relations for this to happen since the police would be blamed for the closure.
pPISllIIiif
close season.
7?
Secondly clubs have no say in the number of police who attend a ground. U nderthe
Sports
discretion
ot
dEcretion as to the
me number
—
- om
™
Safety o f
dub? are a ^ e v e d that
klative lone-stop.
Private sector
fce havc this w
legislative
lo„g-stop. Pri
: believe that
This does not mean that we suppo a c a g
should be prepared to justify the numbers
Act. The Football League* p r o p . A e pohce should be
^ ^
which they consider are requir .
i d threat an(j that so long as the police
numbers who attend matches on the basi; of the
th a f‘... if there is
decide on numbers, they are performi g p
reason police have a responsibility to
between pub lij and private responsibilities is not as clear as some nught wrsh.
'Ev. p. 90.
2£V. p. 91; Q. 53.
3not printed.
4eg QQ. 53, 169.
5Q. 51.
6 Press Release, 13 December 1990.
’Football League letter to the Home Secretary.
8 £ v . p. 84.
9Q. 367.
XXIV
SECOND REPORT FROM
73. Furthermore, it is at least questionable whether Taylor intended there to be a move
towards full economic costing. Certainly we think it is hard to believe that he intended his policing
recommendations to be a financial incubus on the game. The Football League argued the
distinction between Taylor’s proposals and those of the government,1and the Chairman of the
FLA said of Taylor that ‘the word he used was ‘realistic’. Now, he is no mean lawyer and he
chooses his words well. If he had meant an economic charge he would have said so. He chose
to use the word ‘realistic’ and that is certainly not synonymous with the way that others have
interpreted it’.2
74. Finally, we note that the future of one source of funds for clubs for policing inside their
grounds is uncertain. The Football Trust has since 1985 had the policy of helping with policing
charges: grand aid of 50 per cent is paid for the first £50,000,40 per cent for the next £25,000 and
30 per cent for the final £25,000. No grant is paid on charges over £100,000. Ominously, in view
of the rise in charges, the Trust announced in December 1990 that it intended to ‘review its policy
on providing support for police charges’.3 We consider that it would be inappropriate to charge
dubs the full cost of policing when that cost can ultimately be determined by one party to the bargain
alone. We therefore recommend that the costs of policing a football match should be assessed on the
marginal costs of doing so.
(iv) An equitable method o f charging
75. We should like to see a charging formula which reflects clubs’ ability to pay and their
record in taking measures against hooliganism. At the same time, clubs themselves should take
on greater responsibility for stewarding inside grounds and leave the police with responsibility for
law and order functions only. We shall return to this second point later. On the first point, we
favour a simple system of paying the police a percentage of gate receipts.
76. We found some support for this idea among our witnesses. The Police Superintendents’
Association argued for something similar in proposing ‘a customer safety levy’ which ‘could be
increased or decreased according to the problems caused by a particular club’. They thought that
a levy would give an incentive to all to reduce hooliganism.4 Mr Sandford of the Football League
said that ‘a charge based upon expense per spectator’ would be ‘realistic, consistent and
business-like’, and was prepared to endorse the principle of paying a percentage of gate receipts.5
Some doubts were expressed. The FSA was hostile to the idea of supporters paying extra charges
for policing,6 but appear to have disregarded the fact that policing costs, if paid by the club, will
always ultimately come out of the supporters’ pockets. A Police Federation witness was
concerned that a flat percentage charge would be unfair, especially as a similar system would need
to apply to other sports,7 and Lord Ferrers told us that ‘if you pay a percentage of the takings,
that is convenient to the club because it knows where it stands, but, of course, almost certainly
that will not provide sufficient funds’.8
77. The consistent national formula we have in mind for charging for the police presence at
grounds would have two elements. A percentage of the takings would be paid to the police. The
minimum percentage could be set so that the total raised would be perhaps 20 per cent higher than
the total national bill for policing at present. Wealthy clubs with large gates would in consequence
generally pay rather more for policing and smaller, poorer clubs might pay no more than they do
at present. However, the percentage of takings would also vary within fixed parameters to reflect
the club’s record in taking measures against hooliganism. Because we want to see football putting
its own house in order, we do not wish to see the badly run clubs being let off the hook. A club
with a history of arrests, with a number of its fans subject to exclusion orders and which has done
little to curb hooliganism or police itself could be charged more, and other clubs less. Percentages
could vary season by season and be set by the Police Authority in consultation with the FLA. We
recommend that the Home Office withdraw its current draft drcular, and produce new proposals for
r h a r g in g sports clubs for policing on the basis of varying percentages of the gate takings.
78. We appreciate that a formula for police charges for football could not be drawn up in
isolation from the policing of other private events. There is clearly a case for the organisers of
'Q. 53.
2Q. 349.
3Press Release, 13 December 1990.
4 £ v . p. 55.
*QQ. 53, 57, 59.
6Q. 169.
7Q. 269.
*Q. 341.
XXV
some events (for example, a dance) to pay the full costs of any police who attend under section
15 provisions. We note that the costs of some other private events, such as party political
conferences, are met entirely from public funds. A recent parliamentary reply disclosed that the
additional costs of policing the two main parties’ conferences between 1987 and 1990 was almost
£5.5 million, but that none of this cost had been met by the parties concerned.1 Sports events seem
to us to fall neither into the category of public nor private events, and it is for this reason that
we favour the percentage of the gate formula. Different percentages from those at soccer would
clearly need to be applied to assess the costs of policing the two rugby codes or cricket or motor
racing where the problems are much less. Since we have endorsed the principle of consistency in
the case of football, while doubting whether clubs can or should pay the full cost, we believe that
section 15 of the Police Act 1964 may now need review. We recommend that the Home Office
consider whether section 15 should be amended to reflect more clearly the desirability of charging
differential costs for policing private events depending on the value to the public of the event.
4. Stewarding
79. Irrespective of the method of charging for police inside grounds, it is desirable for clubs
to shift responsibility for stewarding tasks from the police to private stewards employed by the
club. The economic case is clear. Stewarding will reduce the police costs under the formulae
proposed by us or by the Government. There is also an issue of principle: the police should be
present at football matches as police officers, protecting public safety, preventing crime and
arresting those guilty of criminal offences. The existing ambivalence of their position, agents of
the club or public officials, disturbs them as it disturbs us.2 To take an obvious example, the
searching of spectators inside grounds should be undertaken by stewards, as airline passengers are
searched by private security firms. But if a drink container is discovered or an offensive weapon,
the law has been broken, and it is the job of the police to deal with the offender. There are a
number of ground regulations, the contravention of which is not a criminal offence, for example,
using radios, climbing pylons, entering members’ enclosures without being a member and so on.3
It should be the job of stewards, not the police to enforce these regulations. It should certainly
be the stewards’ responsibilities to man gates, direct spectators to places, keep gangways clear and
to perform other tasks which assist public safety. As the Scottish Police Federation4 argued,
‘higher profile stewarding supported by low profile policing is the way forward’.
80. Taylor favoured a shift towards stewarding rather than policing, and made the important
recommendation (which the Committee fully endorse) that there should be a written statement of
intent between club and police outlining their respective functions for club control and safety.5
But he also drew attention to the limited capacity and reliability of many of the stewards at present
employed. Our witnesses were without exception in favour of better stewarding. Similar points
were made to us in Holland. Sir James Anderton called for ‘properly appointed and trained
stewards’, and the Police Superintendents’ Association and Police Federation also referred to the
need for ‘competent and effective’ and ‘well-trained and effective’ stewards.6 Lord Ferrers
referred to the use of competent stewards as ‘far more economic and far more satisfactory’,7and
the Scottish Police Federation told us that
‘stewards now require to be younger, better trained and of sufficient numbers to be fully
effective. They require to be well disciplined, well briefed and capable of working in
close liaison with the police.’8
81. Some clubs already employ efficient stewards. The Scottish Police Federation went on
to tell us that they ‘were most impressed by the approach of Glasgow Rangers FC’,9 and in our
visit to Glasgow we also saw an effective division of responsibility between the Strathclyde police,
a private security firm with experience of a wide range of public order situations and club stewards.
The Professional Footballers Association also referred to the fact that ‘bad language ... has been
'HC Deb 11 December 1990, c. 354.
p. 62.
3£V. p. 86.
4Ev. p. 66.
5Cm 962, pp. 36-8.
6Q. 260; Ev. pp. 57 and 62.
7Q. 369.
2E v .
8£
v.
9E\
p. 66.
p . 66.
SECOND REPORT FROM
xxvi
dealt with most efficiently by private stewarding at Manchester United FC’,1and the FA drew
our attention to moves to employ efficient and professional stewards at Port Vale, Stoke City and
Leicester City.2
82. Other clubs need to bring their standards up to those of the best. The Football League
is well aware of this. As its secretary told us3
‘most events now are privately stewarded and stewarded very effectively and we in the
football industry realise that and realise the way forward is to get people used to the
idea of being stewarded rather than controlled
We welcome the commitment by ACPO to assist the football authorities in designing a proper
training package.4 However, Sir James Anderton pointed out that it is the clubs’ responsibility
to appoint stewards, not that of the police.5 It will not do for the present casual ‘Dad’s army
of often elderly, mostly untrained and woefully under%paid stewards to take responsibility for
high profile stewarding. The new edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (the Green
Guide)6 sets exacting standards for stewards. We recommend that the FLA monitor carefully the
way in which the stewarding provisions of the Green Guide are followed, and not hesitate to use their
powers against a club which does not meet the requisite standard.
F. The Role of Government
1. Offences
83. One of the duties of the government is to ensure that a framework of legislation supports
the police and clubs in their efforts to curb hooliganism. Our Scottish witnesses emphasised the
flexibility of the common law in Scotland. The Scottish Office told us, for example, that ‘the
common law provisions of breach of the peace can catch a wide range of factors ; that by virtue
of common law powers, a police officer has power to arrest on suspicion’ and that ‘the maximum
penalty for common law offences is not defined by statute and is limited only by the maximum
sentencing powers of the court’.7 By contrast, the offence of breach of the peace in England and
Wales ‘has got to be immediate and not distanced from the offence itself8 and can lead only to
a bind-over.
84. Popplewell considered the Scottish common law powers in his Report9 following the
Bradford disaster. He concluded:
‘Quite clearly a new offence in England and Wales of disorderly conduct or breach of
the peace on the lines of the Scottish common law offence, would be of substantial
assistance in dealing with hooliganism. It would avoid the problem of trying to define
all the different types of behaviour which give rise to disorder at football matches and
would undoubtedly enable the police to take action much earlier than they can under
the present law. This offence should be confined to sports grounds where the disorderly
conduct is likely to have such a devastating effect on crowd safety. Disorderly conduct
would clearly include throwing a missile, running onto the pitch, seeking to climb over
or to pull down a perimeter fence, shining a mirror towards a batsman, throwing bottles
or cans onto the field of play, or interfering with a greyhound or horse race. I suggest
that it should be triable summarily and there should be a power of arrest. I recommend,
therefore, that consideration should be given to creating an offence of disorderly
conduct at a sports ground.’
85. The Government did not adopt Popplewell’s recommendation. They argued to Taylor
that it was wrong in principle to treat sports grounds as a special case and that section 5 of the
Public Order Act 1986 in any case covered the mischief. Taylor was not satisfied on either of these
points,10 but he did not agree with Popplewell’s proposal for a catch-all offence. He instead
recom m en ded three new specific offences at designated sports grounds of
]Ev. p. 91.
2Q. 16.
3Q. 23.
4Ev. p. 50; QQ. 18, 297.
SQ. 297.
6HMSO 1990.
1Ev. pp. 24 & 26.
8Q. 203.
9Cmnd 9710, para. 4.74.
l0Cm 962, pp. 50-51.
•
x x v ii
-
(i) throwing a missile
(ii) chanting obscene or racialist abuse
(iii) going on to a pitch without reasonable excuse.
He also recommended the creation of a further offence of selling tickets for and on the day of a
football match without authority from the home club to do so. According to Lord Ferrers,1
Taylor preferred specific offences because ‘it would act as more of a deterrent if people knew
exactly what was outlawed’. The then Home Secretary announced in the debate on the Queen’s
Speech that the government accepted Taylor’s recommendations and proposed to ‘bring
proposals before the House as soon as parliamentary time allows’.2
86.
Our witnesses were largely supportive of the Taylor recommendations, the main
dissenting voice coming from the Football Writers Association3 who warned that specific,
football-related offences might be counter-productive. There was widespread police support for
anti-ticket tout legislation,4 while the National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs
expressed themselves strongly in favour of making pitch invasion illegal. The Football League
believed that the proposed offences within grounds would have ‘a significant deterrent effect on
would-be offenders’, while they pointed to the ‘potential for disorder’ which ticket-touting
represented.5 The FA was in favour of all four Taylor offences, and Sir James Anderton regretted
that they had not been included in the current Criminal Justice Bill.6 The Aston Villa branch of
the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association also drew our attention to the speed with which
some clubs had pulled down perimeter fencing, while ‘we have had no corresponding support from
the law which makes infringement of the pitch an offence’.7
87.
Although most of our evidence referred to the Taylor offences, the Police
Superintendents’ Association and the AMA both commended Popplewell’s catch-all offence as
well.8 It is clear that Popplewell intended all the mischiefs dealt with under the breach of the peace
legislation in Scotland to be capable of being arrestable offences in England and Wales. Under
Taylor’s proposals, climbing flood-light pylons or climbing over perimeter fences would not be
criminal offences. We recommend that the Government reconsider the need for the catch-all offence
of disorderly conduct at sports grounds.
88. This Committee is not anxious to create unnecessary new crimes or to clog up the courts
any further. It does not wish to stymie young men’s futures with criminal records, and certainly
has no desire to increase the prison population. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the evidence from
Scotland that the policy of arrest rather than ejection has improved the behaviour of Scottish fans,
and the widespread view that there is an important deterrence factor through the existence of
criminal offences. We support the introduction of the four Taylor offences. We pay particular
regard to the advice of Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm George that ‘if we have specific
criminal law under which the police could operate at the turnstile, on the concourse and on the
terraces, that would be of great value to the policeman operating in the execution of his duty’.9
The creation of new criminal offences will also help emphasise the difference in role between
stewards and the police. It would not be practical for the police to attempt to arrest all those who
committed every minor offence, and, if pitch invasion were an offence, very few of those who went
on to a pitch could possibly be arrested. Often, too, we would expect police officers to warn
offenders about their conduct or, if they arrest them and discover that they have no criminal
record, consider dealing with them by means of a caution. We believe that there should be no delay
in bringing the Taylor offences on to the statute book.
89. We took up with Lord Ferrers Sir James Anderton’s disappointment that the Criminal
Justice Bill did not include the Taylor offences. He told us that the Bill ‘is to deal with criminal
justice and the way in which it operates and does not include the making or creation of new
offences’.10 We understand that it would indeed be outside the scope of the Bill to propose the
‘Q. 310.
2HC Deb 12 November, c. 355.
i Ev. p. 104.
4eg Scottish Association of Police Superintendents, Ev. p. 58; Police Federation, Ev. p. 63.
sEv. p. 83.
6QQ. 64, 200.
1Ev. p. 88.
8£V. pp. 56 and 105.
9Q. 214.
10Q. 307.
SECOND REPORT FROM
x x v iii
creation of new offences. Lord Ferrers instead suggested on three occasions1 that a Private
Member’s Bill might be a suitable vehicle for giving the Taylor proposals legislative effect. Since
there is no immediate possibility of government legislation, we believe that we should be letting
down the witnesses who gave evidence to us if we did not ourselves bring forward a Bill. Members
of the Committee will therefore seek to present the Football (Offences) Bill on the day of
publication of this Report. We are confident that the Bill will be uncontroversial and that it will
receive government support. We recommend that the House pass the Bill without delay.
2. Penalties for Convicted Hooligans
(i) Exclusion orders
90. Under Part IV of the Public Order Act 1986, orders which have the effect of excluding
offenders from professional football matches may be made by courts against persons who commit
football-related offences. The orders may be for an indefinite period, but not less than three
months. Breach of an exclusion order is punishable by a fine or imprisonment.2 On 9 January
1991, just under 1,000 exclusion orders were current. The Committee believes that exclusion
orders are a very important method which is available to the courts when dealing with football
hooligans. There are, however, a number of measures which need to be taken to render them more
effective.
91. First of all, those excluded must fear detection if they contravene the order. The Home
Office told us that ‘the rigorous enforcement of exclusion orders is not easy to achieve’,3 but we
are confident that the use of football intelligence officers, the spotter system, CCTV and, most of
all, the NFIU can make the system work. Secondly, there must be an adequate remedy against
breach of an exclusion order. Sir James Anderton told us that courts had extended the length of
exclusion orders against those who re-offended. He approved this practice in principle, but
believed that courts were acting ultra vires in doing so.4 We were assured by a number of police
officers whom we met who had experience of policing football that a longer exclusion order was
more feared than any other penalty. We recommend that the law be amended so that breach of an
exclusion order may be punished by the imposition of a consecutive exchision order.
92.
In August 1988, the Home Office issued a circular to justices, police forces and the CPS
reminding them of the existence of exclusion orders and how they were quite ineffective if
substantial periods of exclusion fell within the summer close season. Nevertheless, we heard
complaints from a number of sources about the way in which the courts only sporadically imposed
exclusion orders, and how some quite ludicrous exclusion orders had been passed. On some
occasions, contrary to the provisions of the Act, magistrates purported to pass orders banning
offenders from one club only, and there were even instances of offenders being excluded from an
away ground for three months though they were unlikely to travel there again for another year.
The general view was perhaps best expressed by the National Federation of Football Supporters
Clubs, who told us that the current position ‘makes a mockery of both the legislation and the
judiciary’.5 Criticism was also voiced by the NFIU, the Police
Federation, Police
Superintendents’ Association and ACPO, as well as the Football League.6
93. Lord Ferrers also believed that it was important that exclusion orders ‘should be used
by the courts whenever appropriate’, but he seemed unwilling to offer an article to the journal of
the Magistrates’ Association on the advantages of exclusion orders.7 We believe that every means
should be used to make magistrates, their clerks and the CPS aware of what exclusion orders are
and how they should best be used. Football clubs should invite them to their grounds, and police
commanders who have not done so should brief their local bench on the work of football
intelligence officers and the NFIU. We are well aware that many magistrates do implement the
law in a sensible way, but it is unacceptable for the most effective remedy against hooligans to be
ignored or misused by other benches. We pursued by correspondence with the Magistrates’
Association the criticisms of them which we had received. They argued that ‘magistrates are
aware that orders made must be enforceable. It is questionable whether a ban covering all grounds
'QQ. 307, 309, 313.
pp. 4-5.
2E v .
3£
v.
p . 6.
“Q. 175.
5£ v . p. 103.
6£ v . p p . 38, 63, 57, 47, 84.
7QQ. 319-320.
x x ix
would be enforceable’.1 We believe that the magistrates should trust the police’s professional
endorsement of exclusion orders. We recommend that the Home Office again issue a circular to
magistrates and clerks to justices drawing attention to the availability, efficacy and appropriate use
of the exclusion order.
94. There is one problem with exclusion orders which we think is less susceptible to easy
solution. The NFIU told us that ‘persons who are excluded often attend the vicinity of the ground
and engage in pre- and post-match disorder’.2 Legislation to ban those subject to exclusion order
from the vicinity of grounds is not really practicable; it would not be possible to police, say, a mile
‘exclusion zone’. What can be done away from the grounds was illustrated by the evidence of the
British Transport Police: if they are aware that persons subject to exclusion orders intend to travel
on a football train, they warn them that they will not be able to enter the ground, and pass on
to the force concerned the fact that such people are travelling.3
(ii) Restriction Orders
95. Under Part II of the Football Spectators Act 1989, which came into force on 24 April
1990, restriction orders can be made against those convicted of football-related offences.
Restriction orders have the effect of preventing people from attending key matches outside
England and Wales by requiring them to report to a police station at the time the match is being
played. The period of restriction is for two years, or five years if the person is given a sentence
of immediate imprisonment. Under the Act, it is possible by agreement for offenders found guilty
outside England and Wales of ‘corresponding offences’ to be made subject to restriction orders.
Agreements have so far been reached with Italy and Scotland, and one is being negotiated with
Sweden.4 Very few restriction orders have been made. 14 were imposed by Chesterfield
Magistrates’ Court in connection with the Chesterfield vs Grimsby match on 5 May, and when
the Home Office evidence was submitted on 28 September only 1 other order had been made. By
the time NFIU submitted its evidence, 19 orders were in existence. This figure had not increased
by the date we took oral evidence from Lord Ferrers (28 November).5 At the latest date for which
we have figures (9 January 1991), there were still only 19 orders. Both Lord Ferrers and the NFIU
told us that the system was too young to have been tested.6
96. Although we are prepared to give the legislation the benefit of the doubt, we believe that
some improvements are clearly necessary if the system is to be effective. Since restriction orders
are intended primarily to deal with those who travel abroad, it is first of all vital for magistrates
in this country to know when sentencing an offender for a football-related offence whether or not
that offender is likely to travel. Someone has to make the magistrates aware of this. It will not
be apparent from the offender’s criminal record if he has travelled outside England and Wales to
football matches. It is only likely to be known to his home police force or to the NFIU whether
he is a potential troublemaker either in Scotland or abroad. We recommend that in the case of
serious football-related oifences, the police ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service are aware of
the accused’s likelihood to travel to football matches outside England and Wales, and that where
there are grounds for imposing a restriction order, the CPS draw the court’s attention to its powers
to do so.
97. If a person has committed a football-related offence outside England and Wales, that is
the best justification of all for ensuring that he does not travel again to football abroad. This is
why it is most important that the ‘corresponding offences’ provisions of the Act should work well.
There is no evidence that they do work. When the Committee was in Italy, there was very little
evidence of knowledge of the provisions of the British legislation. Dutch officials had only just
been approached about the possibility of operating the corresponding offences provision in
respect of the Netherlands. The Home Office assured us7 that considerable efforts were made to
draw the attention of the Italian authorities to the new provisions. We are in no position to
adjudicate, but we note that none of the 36 Britons known to the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office as having been convicted during the 1990 World Cup has yet had his conviction confirmed
to the British authorities.
lEv. p. 179.
2Ev. p. 38.
p. 72.
p. 5; HC Deb 7 December 1990, cc 229-230 & 242.
5Q. 336.
6Ev. p. 38; Q. 329.
7Footnote to Q. 331.
3£ v .
4£ v .
XXX
SECOND REPORT FROM
98. One problem with the corresponding offences provisions is not easily soluble. We learnt
from the police in Italy that the speedy deportation of offenders was seen as a preferable response
to disorder than embarking on the lengthy and expensive process of securing convictions. This
approach was evident after the violent disturbances at Rimini when 238 Britons were taken into
custody before being expelled, but none was charged. It was obvious from our discussions with
Italian politicians that the different characteristics of the Italian criminal justice system do not
allow the speedy justice which is possible in the English courts. Despite this, as the Home Office
argued, ‘the extent to which the ‘corresponding offences’ provisions can be brought to bite will
depend in large part on the readiness of foreign jurisdictions to prosecute and convict British
hooligans’.1 We recommend that British Ministers and officials continue to apply pressure in
TREVI to encourage countries with different criminal justice systems to see the value for themselves
and other countries of securing convictions of British football hooligans.
(iii) Attendance Centre Orders
99. Taylor recommended that attendance centre orders should be made available to the
courts for offenders aged over 21, and that their maximum length be increased from 36 to 72
hours. The Government rejected this recommendation, arguing that older offenders would be
disruptive, and that the number of centres would need to be greatly increased.2 The Magistrates’
Association3 called for senior attendance centres throughout the country, and complained that
the courts in some areas did not have the attendance centre option. The Chairman of the FA
endorsed attendance centre orders, but accused the magistrates of not using the existing facility.
Similar points were made by the Football League and others within football.4 Sir James
Anderton told us that ‘whilst in principle some kind of use of an enlarged attendance centre system
could be beneficial from the police point of view’, he saw a number of practical problems,
principally the need for attendance centres to open each Saturday and for them to be manned by
people other than police officers.5
100. We are aware that the Police Federation has long opposed the idea that the police should
be ‘the rubbish bin to which all ‘awkward’ tasks should be allotted’,6 and we were attracted by
the view of the Scottish Association of Police Superintendents who argued that:7
‘Police are already committed [on Saturdays] on operational policing of football
matches. Reporting centres independent from police control have merits and there may
be an opportunity to link a reporting order with an obligation to undertake community
work’.
The White Paper Crime Justice and Protecting the Public* and the Criminal Justice Bill both set
great store by community penalties. We believe that the attendance centre order is the most
appropriate community penalty in the case of football for the simple reason that the centres open
on Saturday afternoons when most matches are played. We agree with the Scottish
Superintendents that there is no need for the police to supervise attendance centres: retired services
personnel, for example, would be excellent at providing the disciplined environment necessary.
We recommend that the government reconsider the Taylor recommendations to extend the scope of
attendance centre orders; that more of these facilities be made available in areas of the country which
do not at present have them, and that alternative methods of staffing them be explored.
(iv) Curfews/electronic tagging
101. Controversial proposals to deal with offenders by curfew orders, possibly reinforced by
electronic tagging are contained in the Criminal Justice Bill. These follow the endorsement by
Taylor of tagging as a means of dealing with football hooligans.9 Lord Ferrers, while arguing
that the experiment with electronic tagging had shown that the technology worked, told us that
the use of this penalty was only possible ‘where the necessary monitoring arrangements are
xEv. p. 6.
2Ev. p. 8; Q. 318.
3£ v . p. 107.
4QQ. 33, 66, 74, 77; Ev. pp. 84, 89.
5Q. 279.
6Ev. p. 63.
1Ev. p. 59.
8Cm 965.
9Cir. 962, recommendation 73.
xxxi
available in the area where the curfew is to apply’.1 It is unlikely that curfews enforced by
electronic tagging are going to play an important part in dealing with football hooligans in the
immediate future.
(v) Disposals: general
102. The Football League argued that ‘magistrates are generally reluctant to make full use
of the powers available to them’,2 while the British Transport Police from their nation-wide
perspective noted that ‘sentencing practices vary from court to court and differ around the
country’.3 But generally we found little complaint about the way in which the courts dealt with
football hooligans, other than in the area of exclusion orders. While distancing itself from extreme
penalties like corporal punishment (‘flogging’ was recently proposed by one Member of
Parliament as a means of dealing with hooligans),4 the Police Federation called for higher fines
and ‘swingeing penalties’ for those who assaulted the police.5 By contrast, the Police
Superintendents’ Association drew our attention to sentencing over-reaction ‘on the odd
occasion’, and told us that ‘they did not receive the impression there is a general and wide problem
with the sentencing’.6 We do, however, endorse the Police Federation’s proposal that judges and
magistrates should make it their business to attend football matches, as we know that many
have.7
3. Alcohol
103. There is universal agreement that alcohol, as it can elsewhere, often exacerbates bad
behaviour at football matches. As the Home Office told us ‘consumption of alcohol serves to
make less committed hooligans more inclined towards violent behaviour’.8 The various measures
taken over the years to control alcohol at sports grounds were described in Home Office and
Scottish Office evidence.9 The principal difference between Scotland and England and Wales is
that alcohol is totally banned from football grounds north of the border, while licensing justices
in England and Wales can permit alcohol sales within grounds, though it may not be consumed
or sold within view of the pitch. Taylor10considered anti-alcohol measures, and concluded that
the current law on sales at matches should remain; but bars in the vicinity of a match might be
closed if practical, and that early kick-offs and Sunday matches should also be considered.
104. There is no sure-fire way of preventing fans who are worse for drink from arriving at
a match. In cities it is impractical to shut all pubs, and in any case off-licences and supermarkets
sell alcohol. Alcohol is banned on football trains, but more and more fans travel in their own cars
and vans. The Committee does, however, believe that there are one or two modest measures which
could be taken to curb drunkenness. First, paradoxically, alcohol sales at grounds themselves may
encourage fans not to turn up late, which is a public safety problem, and not to consume as much
alcohol as possible before they arrive at the ground. At present differing opinions are held on the
arguments for and against bars at grounds,11 but no objective evidence is available. We
recommend that research be undertaken to assess any differences in the level of drunkenness at
grounds where (i) alcohol is not available (ii) low-strength beer is available (ill) ordinary beer is sold.
105.
Drinking in the streets can be a menace on occasions other than football, and
experimental bye-laws have been tried at a number of towns making it illegal to continue drinking
in designated areas after being warned by a police officer not to do so. One of the participating
towns, Scarborough, designated the streets leading to its football ground as areas to which the
bye-laws applied.12 The FA told us that, if the bye-laws were to become universal, they would
provide a back-up to other restrictions; a similar point of view was expressed by the Police
Superintendents’ Association, and Lord Ferrers described the bye-laws as ‘very su ccessfu l’.13 The
Government announced in October14 that the experimental bye-law is to be made more widely
'Q . 311.
2Ev. p. 84.
3£V. p. 73.
4HC Deb 13 December c. 1100.
5 £ v . p. 63.
6£V. p. 56; Q. 179.
7Q. 179.
8£
v.
p . 2.
9Ev. pp. 4, 21-2.
l0Cm 962, pp. 43-45.
“ QQ. 405 ff.
i2£V. p. 4.
13£V. pp. 77, 57, Q. 404.
l press Release, Home Office, 10 October 1990.
x x x ii
SECOND REPORT FROM
available. We recommend that local authorities, in consultation with local police commanders, make
full use of this new power where appropriate to cut down on public drinking in the streets near football
matches.
106. The Bus and Coach Council drew our attention to the successful operation of the
Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc) Act 1985 so far as public service vehicles are concerned,
but pointed out that the Act did not apply to private minibuses.1 We understand that current
European Community proposals will widen the definition of public service vehicles so that
privately hired vehicles are covered. We recommend that the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol
Etc) Act 1985 be amended so that all public service vehicles as defined in European law are covered
by the Act.
4. Home Office Inspectorate of Constabulary’s role
107. The Inspectorate has been charged with examining and improving the efficiency and
standards of the Police Service in England and Wales. The Home Secretary ‘attaches great
importance to the constructive role of the Inspectorate in ... encouraging the sharing of ideas, best
practice and the prompt utilisation of new equipment and techniques’.2 HMIC publish a
‘Directory of Good Practice’ described as a ‘catalogue of ideas, covering a wide field of police
activity and administration’. The directory is a compendium of good practices followed by
various forces, which are thought by HMIC to be worthy of emulation by other forces. We are
concerned that the HMIC Directory contained no section dedicated to the dissemination of good
practice in the policing of football. Indeed the entire section on public order covers only one half
of one page. It is clear from what we were told by the office of HMIC that much is done by
Inspectors to spread best practice during force inspections. However, if no ideas on best practice
relating to the policing of football appear in the published Directory, it is unclear exactly what
is disseminated by Inspectors.
108. It seems to us desirable for the Inspectorate to have a more pro-active role in the
establishment and promulgation of what is ‘best practice’, not only in policing football but in all
other aspects of police work. A recent report by the Audit Commission3 has criticised the
understaffing and underfunding of the Inspectorate in relation to its exclusive role in the external
scrutiny of forces. The equivalent of only about one twentieth of a percentage point of the
national police budget goes to fund HMIC, and the ratio of Inspectorate staff to manpower is over
three times higher in the Inspectorate of Schools, for example, as it is in HMIC.4 We agree with
the view of the Audit Commission report that HMIC is under-resourced for the role assigned to
it by the Home Office. We hope to look later in the session at the work of the Inspectorate.
5. International Co-operation
109. The Home Office told us that the Government regarded ‘its responsibilities as extending
to international co-operation for the prevention of misbehaviour by our citizens abroad’.5 It was
apparent from the evidence we received that a great deal of commendable work has taken place
to co-operate in the policing of international football matches. Initial progress towards an
integrated European approach was achieved through the European Convention on Spectator
Violence, signed in 1985. Signatories to the Convention, which include all the major European
countries with the exception of Germany, undertake to ‘ensure the formulation and
implementation of measures designed to prevent and control violence and misbehaviour by
spectators’. In particular, the Convention refers to close co-operation and exchange of
information between police forces, co-ordination of travel arrangements for away supporters and
maintenance of stadia which facilitate effective segregation. The Convention also commits
Parties, whilst respecting existing legal procedures, to ensure that ‘spectators committing acts of
violence are identified and prosecuted in accordance with the due process of law’. At a rather more
practical level, the TREVI organisation of law enforcement ministers and officials from EC
Member states set up in 1987 a network of permanent correspondents to exchange information
on football policing.6 The permanent correspondent was initially a senior officer of British
Transport Police, but is currently the head of the NFIU.
'Ev. p. 177.
2The role o f HM Inspectorate of Constabulary England and Wales, Home Office 1990.
3Audit Commission Police Paper No. 8, Effective Policing-emrule Performance Reviews in Police Forces.
4Audit Commission Report, para. 91.
x x x iii
110. ' The Committee dealt at length with the TREVI organisation in a recent report. We
concluded that TREVI has great value in matters which specifically concern EC states in its
political dimension and in the area of terrorism’ and we recommended that its activities be
restricted to these areas’.2 From our present inquiry, it is clear that bilateral contacts through
the TREVI football correspondent network are useful, and that very valuable Guidelines to
Co-operation in the Policing of International Football Matches’, which are set out in full in the
Minutes of Evidence,3 have been drawn up. However we note two points from our evidence.
First, NFIU drew a distinction between the vital, but somewhat mechanistic, role of exchangi g
travel information, which they described as the TREVI role a n d the other role of exchan^ng
intelligence about international football which was distinct from TREVI. ^ o n d ly , Assista
Chief Constable Malcolm George reminded us of the principal limitation of TREVI. that it
confined to EC Member States, while international football even in Europe has no such narro
restriction.5
111. The 1985 European Convention was drawn up under the auspices of the Council of
Europe. The Council already contains 24 Member states, and is likely shortly to be joined by
other Eastern European countries. Moreover the Convention is not restricted to Member states
of the Council, and has been signed already by Yugoslavia. There seems to us no reason w y
football correspondent network of TREVI should not be extended to all the Member States ot
the Council of Europe, and why provisions which already exist m the Convention for meetings
of groups of experts should not be used for regular police to police dialogue on the practicalities
of co-operation against travelling hooligans. We understand that British police officers have neve
been present at any meeting which has taken place under the provisions ° f the Convention.^ T
may in part be explained by the fact that the Department of Education a n d Science (until very
recently, the Department of the Environment) and not the Home Office takes the lead in the
United Kingdom on Convention matters. Police to police meetings w o u ld widen the sco p e for
co-operation, and ensure a network of personal police contacts that would facihtate exchange o
information and, ultimately when trust is established, intelligence. We are a lso sure that Inteqp
would be able to play a part in this process, though Interpol is strictly concerned Q a iy w ith c n
rather than public order matters. We recommend that the networkof football
extended to all European states which wish to participate. We farther recommend
responsibility for the Convention should pass from the Department of Education and Science to the
Home Office.
112
There are two further practical measures which the signatory status of the European
Convention could take. We have seen in the United Kingdom how g o o d intelligence at the NFIU
is vital in fighting hooliganism. We believe that a European register of hooligans should now be
considered. Intelligence on internationally travelling hooligans could be ex ch an ged through this
register. We also believe that Member states should try to devise an agreed system of
collaboration and reciprocal action which will prevent hooligans leaving one country ^
their activities in another. We have already described how the restriction order in the Umted
Kingdom has not been effective, and a number of police witnesses p o in ted out that, in any case,
a restriction order did not prevent a hooligan from leaving England and Wales but merely made
Wm guilty of an offence if he was absent at the time he should have reported.6 We recommend
that the United Kingdom government should propose at the next meeting of the Standing Committ
established under the European Convention (a) the establishment of a European register of footba
hooligans and (b) an effective means of preventing hooligans from travelling abroad.
113
Whether an individual match or a series of matches like the World CuP »r 2 g
Championship is concerned, the most important contacts are those established on a bilateral basis.
Lord Ferrers emphasised this to us.7 From the Government’s viewpoint,
‘the World Cup in Italy in 1990 showed that co-ordination and advance Pla““ “g ^
the governments and the police forces concerned can go a long way to reduce the
opportunities for football hooliganism ._____ ________________ ____ __________
1Practical Police Co-operation in the European Community, Seventh Report, Session 1989-90, HC 363.
2para. 65.
Êv. pp. 40-44.
4 £ v . pp. 36-37.
5Q. 291.
6 £ v . p p . 38, 63.
7Q. 331.
x x x iv
SECOND REPORT FROM
Certainly there was elaborate and careful planning of the World Cup. This is described in the
Memoranda we received.1 Trenchant criticisms were made of Italian policing methods by the
FSA,2 and even ACPO acknowledged that the policing tactics were far heavier than would have
been the case in England.3 English fans were voluble in their complaints of ‘injustice’ and conduct
by Italian police which was a ‘disgrace’.4 It is not, however, our intention to mount a
post-mortem on the policing of the World Cup, except in one regard: the differing tactics
employed by the English and Scottish police.
114. During the World Cup, there were comparatively fewer incidents involving English fans
than had been anticipated, although 238 were deported after disturbances in Rimini, while 36
supporters were convicted, 8 released pending trial and 23 others detained but later released.5 By
contrast, the Italian police appear to have acted in a much softer manner towards Scottish fans
(who, we understand, were lively and hardly abstemious). Not one of the 20,000 Scots present
in Italy was either deported or arrested.6 We believe that the outgoing role played by the Scottish
police who were present in Italy may have helped to bring this about.
115.
The English police priority was to provide travel information, intelligence and
photographs of identified hooligans and tactical information.7 The FA reported that ‘the Italian
police were delighted with the quality of information obtained by the covert officers which was
instrumental in preventing serious incidents’.8 However, ACPO told us that ‘there was no role in
the English police operation for liaison officers to deal publicly and openly with English
supporters’, though they conceded that ‘there were occasions... when an overt presence of British
police officers may well have helped the Italian police in helping to calm situations’.9 By contrast,
ACPO(S) told us that the three principal objectives of the Scottish police unit in Italy were:
(1) ‘to continually portray the Scottish support in a positive image;
(2) to ensure that all press/media information was validated and factual,
(3) to establish a high profile overt relationship with the Scottish support’.10
According to the Scottish Office, Scots police adopted what amounted to a community policing
role, while the Scottish FA told us the Scots police ‘requested a softer line than usual from the
Italian police in dealing with boisterous but not disorderly Scottish supporters’.11
116. Similar tactics to those of the Scots were adopted by Dutch police. When the Committee
was in Utrecht, the Chief Commissioner told us that his police adopt a policy of ‘to know and to
be known’ when policing football hooliganism. They aim to impress upon potential trouble
makers that their faces are known and that they are being watched carefully. Before the World
Cup, the police actually met with known hooligans in order to inform them of the steps that were
being taken in tandem with the Italian police to prevent trouble and to w xm them what to expect
from the Italian police in the event of widespread violence. There were no Dutch supporters
arrested during the World Cup. Dutch practice during the World Cup was complimented by the
FSA,12 and though ACPO was slightly condescending about Dutch police activity in Italy, the
Police Superintendents’ Association commended overt Dutch policing methods which they had
experienced when Wales met Holland in the qualifying rounds of the World Cup.13
117. The Committee would not wish to second-guess operational decisions by the police.
However, the overt and friendly tactics of Scottish and Dutch police did, in their professional
'£v. pp. 10-12; 24; 48-49.
2£v. p. 99.
3Q. 296.
4 £ v . p. 99.
5HC Deb 7 December 1990 c. 242.
6 £ v . p . 24.
7ACPO £ v . p. 49.
®£v. p. 76.
9 £ v . p. 49.
I0£v. p. 53.
"£v. pp. 25, 80.
I2 £ v . p. 1 0 0 .
i3Q. 294; Ev. p. 56.
XXXV
judgement, contribute to the good behaviour of their fans. Good intelligence work is clearly
important, and was not neglected by the Scots or the Dutch. But there is clearly also room for
a friendlier style of policing as well. We recommend that ACPO carefully consider in future whether
intelligence co-operation with foreign forces should be complemented by visible and friendly policing.
G. The Football Licensing Authority
1. Background
118. The Football Licensing Authority (FLA) was created under the Football Spectators Act
1989, and came into operation on 1 June 1990. The FLA is responsible for the granting or re usa
of a licence to admit spectators to any premises to watch any designated football match there. It
has power to impose conditions on the licence, to make inspections and inquiries and to vary a
licence or suspend or revoke it. The FLA has two other functions. It may include in a licence,
if the Home Secretary directs, a condition as to seating. Secondly, under section 13 ot the Act,
the Authority has the job of keeping under review the discharge by local authorities ot their
functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 relating to football. Section 13 gives the
FLA power to insist on amendments to safety certificates and gives FLA inspectors the right to
enter grounds. The section has not been brought into force.1
119. The FLA is financed out of public funds. In the current financial year, provision has
been made of £670,000, although the FLA is unlikely to spend more than £270,000. Provision for
1991-2 is £898,000.2 The Chairman and Members of the Authority are appointed by the Home
Secretary, and the FLA may appoint its own staff. Its temporary Chief Executive is a Home Office
official on secondment. We took evidence from the Home Office and FLA at the same time, but
both parties emphasised to us that they were separate from one another, though they had an
amicable relationship. The infant FLA was at great pains to sever the ‘umbilical cord which
joined it to its parent.3 We note that the Football Spectators Act 19894 specifically provides that
‘the licensing authority shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown . Nevertheless,
the FLA is clearly an Associated Public Body of the Home Office within the terms of Standing
Order No. 130, and we intend to monitor its work closely.5
120
Mr Jacobs, the FLA Chairman, emphasised how early it was in the Authority s life.
Because of this, the FLA had not been willing to submit written evidence, and Mr Jacobs on
several occasions very fairly stressed that the opinions he gave in oral evidence were his own and
that the Authority had not had the opportunity to discuss the matters about which he was being
questioned.6 He told us in particular that ‘it is a little too early to say whether or not we are
adequately resourced’.7 The Committee accepts that these are early days, and that views on the
FLA must remain tentative. Moreover, we have not examined the issue of safety at football
grounds in this inquiry in detail. We are, however, convinced that the FLA can play a key role
fn the future of football, and we shall outline the direction in which we believe the Authority
should be moving.
121 It is vital that the FLA should be given the resources it needs to do its job properly, and
that all the sections of the Football Spectators Act 1989 relating to the Authority (except those
dealing with the aborted national membership scheme) should be brought into force as soon as
possible. In this context, section 13 of the Act is of particular importance. Section 13 will in
effect give the FLA teeth with the local authorities. Mr Jacobs told us that at the m om ent...
w eha w not got the resources to police or deal with that section’.8 A fortnight later, the Mimster
of State told the House9 that ‘neither we nor the Football Li ce nsin g Authority have any reaso
to believe that the funding provision already made for the Football Licensing Authority wi
inadequate to enable it properly to discharge all its statutory functions, including those under
‘QQ. 353-4.
2HC Deb 11 December 1990, c. 353.
3QQ- 307, 343.
4Sch. 2.1.(2).
5Q. 409.
6Q. 348.
7Q. 408.
*Q. 354.
9HC Deb 11 December 1990 c. 353.
xxx vi
SECOND REPORT FROM
section 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989, when that section of the Act is brought into force’.
We welcome this apparent change. We recommend that the Home Office set a swift timetable for
bringing into force all the sections of the Football Spectators Act which relate to the Football
Licensing Authority (except those dealing with the national membership scheme), and that the
financial and manpower resources necessary for the job are provided to the FLA.
2. Membership of the FLA
122. The members of the FLA represent a wide variety of disciplines; they include a former
Chief Constable, the Chairwoman of the Society of Fire Safety Engineers, a former professional
footballer now turned commentator. There is one extraordinary lacuna: no representative of
football supporters is included among the Authority members. While he gave no absolute
undertaking, the then Minister for Sport was sympathetic during the progress of the Football
Spectators Bill to the proposition that the Authority should contain supporter representation.1
Lord Ferrers told us that, while the Government would be perfectly prepared to consider suitably
qualified supporters as members of the FLA, members were not intended to be representative of
interest groups and that a regulatory body such as the FLA was not necessarily improved by
having a spectator member.2
123. Lord Ferrers acknowledged that ‘the reason why the Football Licensing Authority has
... been set up is in order to make life better for football supporters’.3 Both the FSA and the
National Federation of Football Supporters’ Clubs have sought representation on the FLA,4 and
their case for ‘consumer’ representation was one which impressed the Committee. Mr Jacobs told
us that the FLA intended to meet supporters organisations and that one of the Authority’s
members, the journalist Mr Simon Inglis, was also by chance an FSA member.5 There are,
however, two remaining vacancies on the Authority, and Mr Jacobs, while expressing
understandable caution about the need for Authority members to be objective, agreed that a
supporter who met the normal criteria for membership of the Authority would be a strong
candidate for one of the vacancies.6 We recommend that the FLA and Home Office endeavour to
fill one of the remaining vacancies on the Authority with a person acknowledged by the supporters’
organisations to understand the needs of ordinary football spectators.
3. The Green Guide and the FLA
124. A new edition of the Green Guide, the guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, was published
on 30 November 1990. The Guide does not apply only to soccer grounds, and is primarily
concerned, as its title suggests, with safety. The new edition, for example, deals with facilities for
the disabled, guidance on first aid and test procedures for crush barriers. The Guide’s advice is
not obligatory, but can be made mandatory by inclusion in safety certificates. When section 13
of the Football Spectators Act is brought into force, the FLA will have a clear responsibility for
monitoring the issue of safety certificates, and thus compliance with the Green Guide.
125. The Football League argued forcefully that the Green Guide should be mandatory, and
interpreted consistently across the country. The FLA should ensure this.7 Mr Jacobs told us that
the Green Guide was not a manual but a guide and that it should not be followed slavishly: ‘every
ground is a different place and every ground has its own ethos, its own supporters, its own history,
and in every other way so too with the Green Guide. Different interpretations may be necessary’.8
His views were supported by Lord Ferrers.9 Mr Jacobs intended, however, to promote
‘co-operation and harmonisation’ in his dealings with local authorities about the Guide.
126. Taylor recommended that all local authorities with football grounds in their area should
establish Advisory Groups to discuss safety. The Groups should consist of their own staff, police,
fire, ambulance and building authorities and should regularly consult with supporters.10 Home
'Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 July 1989, col. 262-3.
2QQ. 371, 364, 374.
3Q. 365.
“Q. 134.
5QQ. 363-4.
6QQ- 371-6.
7QQ- 26, 43, 47.
8QQ. 379-81.
9Q. 385.
l0Cm 962 rec. 31.
•
XXXVli
:
--------------- ;—
“ .. ;
Office witnesses suggested that these Advisory Groups would ensure that different authorities did
not countermand one another so far as an individual ground was concerned.1 There must,
however, be room for dissemination of best safety practice throughout the country, and w e v ?
much greater opportunity for common standards in this field than there is in the area oi noiicvmethods. We note the view of the FLA that the Football Stadia Advisory Design C o unal tv '
be concerned with the production of a good design m anual.7 We rccoinmcnd that, when k><m
13 of the Football Spectators Act is brought into forcc, the FLA promote consistency awl h'-'standards of safety at grounds.
4. Policing and the FLA: an arbitration role
127. Before issuing a licence to a football ground, the FLA is obliged to have regard ‘among
the other relevant considerations’ to two matters:
t
"
(a)
‘whether the equipment provided, procedures used and other arrangements in force at
the premises are such as are reasonably required to prevent the commission or minimise
the effects of offences at designated football matches; and
(b)
such other considerations as the Secretary of State determines from time to time and
notifies to the licensing authority.’
The FLA is thus obliged to consider anti-hooliganism measures and policing while the
Government has (which, we understand, has not so far made any notifications) carte blanche to
require the FLA to take into account other matters before granting a licence.
128. Many of our witnesses believed that football needed an independent arbitrator, not just
on the safety matters which we have just mentioned, but in policing and other areas as well. 1 he
Police Superintendents’ Association thought the Authority might arbitrate when there were
disputes between police and football authorities about scheduling.3 Chief Superintendent
Clarkson, the ground commander at Leeds, told us4 that he looked to the FLA ‘as a help to me
as the match commander because I see they can be an arbiter in many decisions , while Sir James
Anderton was willing to heed the advice which the FLA might give him.5 Support also came from
the Football League and the Football League Executive Staffs’ Association for an arbitration role
by the FLA.6 Mr Jacobs told us7 that the Authority had its work cut out ‘to deal with our
statutory obligations and not become involved in matters o f ... management between the polirc
and other advisory groups’. He regarded anything beyond the FLA’s statutory obligations as ‘a
matter of persuasion and literally how far our resources go’, but went on very cautiously to say
that
I
‘in due course somewhere along the line when we are up and running if we achieve the
sort of weight and authority and clout that by persuasion and by the sheer objectivity
of the way we are seen to go about things, we are called in to assist because two entities
who are at loggerheads, let us say, think we can help them, if we have the resources,
I am sure it is something we would wish to do’.
129.
The Committee would not wish to put pressure upon the FLA to run before it can walk.
It must build up its staff, its expertise and its credibility. But the FLA is already responsible tor
revoking or issuing licences, and ought to be increasingly involved to arbitrate and oiler advice
about such matters as the circumstances in which matches should be all-ticket or when normal
scheduling should be altered so that kick-off occurs early or on a Sunday. We also sec a m o s t
important role for the FLA in helping police authorities to determine the percentage ot tr.e e >an individual club should pay for the policing of its ground. The abandonment of :hc
Membership Scheme has removed one of the main functions which the FLA v.-as ■■■-’
discharge. But there is an important role for it to fulfil. One of our principal conv*- ; >n‘
inquiry is that football badly needs an honest broker between the competing mur; • ‘ '
'Q . 391.
2Q. 379.
i Ev. p. 56.
4Q. 278.
5Q. 242.
6Q. 93, Ev. p. 90.
7QQ- 357-379.
x x x v iii
SECOND REPORT FROM
local authorities and Government. We are confident that the FLA, under its present Chairman, and
with adequate financial backing from the Government can play this role. We recommend that the
Government realise the inherent potential in the FLA to improve the future of the game.
H. Conclusion
130. Hooliganism associated with football is neither a new problem nor a British problem.
It may have become more vicious in recent years as a small group of malevolent individuals have
exploited soccer for anti-social, violent and criminal purposes. These individuals are adulated and
copied by a few other football supporters, but loathed by the overwhelming majority. Their
activities have caused enormous expenditure of police time and manpower, and they have warped
the image of football among many who do not follow the game. They have distorted the
perception of this country abroad. There is a clear recognition that these people must be targeted
by the police through good intelligence, have watertight cases prepared against them, be brought
before the courts and be sentenced in a way which prevents them from engaging in their activities
in the future. We have made a number of recommendations which will help this process.
131. But football and hooliganism are not synonymous. Soccer is the most popular sport in
England and Scotland. Hundreds of thousands play the game or watch it regularly. Even more
identify with a team or their national side. The national football authorities owe it to these people
to ensure that they oan regard themselves as partners in the game, not as fodder for exploitation
by those who cream off soccer’s rich pickings. The safety, welfare and comfort of all supporters
should all be priorities. Increased leisure time, greater affluence and higher expectations mean that
those who follow football rightly expect more for their money than they did in previous
generations. The ‘them’ and ‘us’ attitudes of the past must be buried. Supporters also expect more
from the police: to be treated with dignity whether they are at home or away, in Aberdeen or
Arsenal, and not criminalised simply by their association with the game. We believe that both the
police and football authorities realise that old attitudes must change, and that much is being done.
Our recommendations will help this process.
132. Because football is such an important national activity, Government also has a role to
perform. The most positive step taken by Government has been the establishment of the Football
Licensing Authority. An interventionist, properly supported Authority is, in our view, the key to
a bright future for football. The legislation for dealing with hooligans must also be put in place
by government. The finances of the game must be properly considered. The tax regime has rightly
been used to help soccer financially. It would be quite wrong for the concessions which the
Treasury has made in the past to be clawed back by a hike in charges for policing. Although the
clubs should do more to police themselves by employing competent stewards, the residual task for
the police at football grounds is more a public than a private responsibility. We have made
proposals for meeting the costs which we regard as a sensible compromise. We are confident that
the Government will fulfil its duties to the game and its followers.
133. Our conclusion from this inquiry is that football authorities, clubs, police, supporters
and government all have further steps which they can take to promote what is good in football,
and tackle what is wrong. They are certainly all united in their determination to eradicate
hooliganism. The more that they co-operate, the sooner that objective will be achieved.
x x x ix
I Summary of Recommendations
134.
We believe that the press ought to exercise much greater responsibility when reporting
football hooliganism.
* ara
We recommend a determined effort by all football clubs to make a much higher standard of
facilities available to fans.
r
We recommend that the Football Licensing Authority pay particular attention to ensuring that
home and away fans receive equal treatment at everyground.
v ara
We recommend that the compulsory seating proposals be re-examined in the case of the smaller
clubs.
(
}
We believe that it should be a priority of clubs to provide the police and other organisations
such as St John Ambulance with the facilities which they need to discharge their duties efficiently.
We recommend that the Government keep under review the rate of Pool Betting Duty, and if
necessary, decrease the rate to make more money available for ground improvements. (Fara is )
We add our voice to all those who have called for an imaginative and vigorous campaign by
the football authorities to ensure that the money is raised and the facilities at all grounds miproved
to the level of the best.
(Fara Zb)
We recommend that the football authorities and the police consult one another on match ^
scheduling and heed one another’s professional expertise.
We do not see any need for any further powers to prevent matches taking place. (Para 29)
We recommend that the police remain alive to the fact that football matches are intended as
entertainment for the enjoyment of the maximum number of law-abiding fans. There must be
/
good reason for altering the day, venue or time of a game.
J >
We recommend that all names and descriptions of hooligans against whom high grade
intelligence is possessed are passed to clubs concerned by the National Football Intelligent Unit
via the local police force’s football liaison officer.
1
'
We believe it would be quite wrong for the police to use tactics against a w a y supporters which
had the intention of extending the Luton experiment [of banning away supporters] by th eb a
door.
We recommend that clubs whose teams are engaged in European competitions organise
attractive, good value and well-stewarded package deals for travelling supporters, and that mate
tickets are available only through these arrangements.
>
We recommend that all League clubs establish community programmes.
(Para 36)
We recommend that the football authorities and individual clubs should establish regular
liaison and dialogue with the supporters’ organisations.
I
We recommend that gradual but steady progress towards desegregation should be them m of
police and clubs.
We urge ACPO to eome forward speedily wi.h the new arrest proeedures " ^ T a y l o r
recommended a year ago.
We recommend that the Home Office should continue to m ontor
technology, and the Football Trust continue to make money avatlable lor
equipment to be installed.
in «deo
^
^
The Committee is convinced that the intensive g
. ^
f < |" ^ m “ n * t o t ' ^ h
effective means of dealing with
club in its area.
(Para 43)
appoints a full-time football intelligence officer for each League
v
xl
SECOND REPORT FROM
We believe that the National Football Intelligence Unit is a fine example of police work sensibly
co-ordinated on a national basis.
(Para 47)
We recommend that ACPO, ACPO (Scotland), the Home Office and Scottish Office monitor
the performance of all police forces in their dealings with NFIU and ensure that, where there are
lapses, they are vigorously brought to the attention of the Chief Constable concerned, since this
effective relationship bears directly upon the proper use of police resources.
(Para 48)
We recommend that the Government meet all reasonable demands made by the NFIU for
resources.
(Para 49)
We recommend that consideration should be given to the appointment of a Scottish officer to
the NFIU.
(Para 50)
It is important for police officers as for the general public to appreciate that the overwhelming
majority of fans, home and away, are law-abiding and have a right to be treated with respect and
dignity by the police.
(Para 52)
We recommend that ACPO and ACPO (Scotland) initiate discussions between the police,
supporters’ organisations and the Football Licensing Authority with the aim of preparing a
national statement of good practice for police to follow when dealing with supporters. We further
recommend that individual chief officers should ensure that individualgrounds are policed on
different occasions so far as possible in the same way.
(Para 55)
We endorse the need for continued constructive dialogue betweenACPO and the NFIU and
the national football authorities, and between each individual club and the local ground
commander.
(Para 56)
We recommend that all chief officers ensure that there is a regular system of liaison between
supporters’ organisations and local ground commanders.
(Para 57)
We expect this momentum [to develop police training] to continue in the future. (Para 58)
We recommend no change in current arrangements for paying for football-related policing
outside and away from football grounds.
(Para 61)
We endorse the proposal for a consistent national charging policy [for policing inside grounds].
(Para 68)
A town cannot be deprived of its soccer club because the bill for policing bankrupts it. It would
hardly be conducive to good police/community relations for this to happen since the police would
be blamed for the closure.
(Para 70)
We consider that it would be inappropriate to charge clubs the full cost of policing when that
cost can ultimately be determined by one party to the bargain alone. We therefore recommend
that the costs of policing a football match should be assessed on the marginal costs of doing so.
(Para 74)
We recommend that the Home Office withdraw its current draft circular, and produce new
proposals for charging sports clubs for policing on the basis of varying percentages of the gate
takings.
(Para 77)
We recommend that the Home Office consider whether section 15 of the Police Act 1964 should
be amended to reflect more clearly the desirability of charging differential costs for policing private
events depending on the value to the public of the event.
(Para 78)
Higher profile stewarding supported by low profile policing is the way forward.
(Para 79)
We recommend that the Football Licensing Authority monitor carefully the way in which the
stewarding provisions of the Green Guide are followed, and not hesitate to use their powers
against a club which does not meet the requisite standard.
(Para 82)
We recommend that the Government reconsider the need for the catch-all offence of disorderly
conduct at sports grounds.
(Para 87)
x li
We believe that there should be no delay in bringing the Taylor offences [throwing a missilp
chanting obscene or recialist abuse, going on to a pitch without reasonable cause and ticket
touting] on to the statute book.
(Para ggy
We recommend that the House pass the Football (Offences) Bill without delay.
(Para 89)
We recommend that the law be amended so that breach of an exclusion order may be punished
by the imposition of a consecutive exclusion order.
(Para 91)
We recommend that the Home Office again issue a circular to magistrates and clerks to justices
drawing attention to the availability, efficacy and appropriate use of the exclusion order. (Para 93)
We recommend that in the case of serious football-related offences, the police ensure that the
Crown Prosecution Service are aware of the accused’s likelihood to travel to football matches
an<^ ^ aês’ an4 that where there are grounds for imposing a restriction order,
the CPS draw the court’s attention to its powers to do so.
(Para 96)
We recommend that British Ministers and officials continue to apply pressure in TREVI to
encourage countries with different criminal justice systems to see the value for themselves and
other countries of securing convictions of British football hooligans.
(Para 98)
We recommend that the Government reconsider the Taylor recommendations to extend the
scope of attendance centre orders; that more of these facilities be made available in areas of the
country which do not at present have them, and that alternative methods of staffing them be
explored.
(Para 1 0 0 )
We recommend that research be undertaken to assess any differences in the level of drunkenness
at grounds where (i) alcohol is not available (ii) low-strength beer is available (iii) ordinary beer
lssold(Para 104)
We recommend that local authorities, in consultation with local police commanders, make full
use of new power [under by-laws] where appropriate to cut down on public drinking in the streets
near football matches.
(Para 105)
We recommend that the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol Etc) Act 1985 be amended so that
all public service vehicles as defined in European law are covered by the Act.
(Para 106)
We recommend that the network of football correspondents [under the TREVI organisation]
be extended to all European states which wish to participate. We further recommend that primary
responsibility for the European Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour should pass
from the Department of Education and Science to the Home Office.
(Para 111)
We recommend that the United Kingdom government should propose at the next meeting of
the Standing Committee established under the European Convention on Spectator Violence and
Misbehaviour (a) the establishment of a European register of footballhooligans and (b) an
effective means of preventing hooligans from travelling abroad.
(Para 112)
We recommend that ACPO carefully consider in future whether intelligence co-operation with
foreign forces should be complemented by visible and friendly policing [of English fans abroad],
(Para 117)
We recommend that the Home Office set a swift timetable for bringing into force all the sections
of the Football Spectators Act which relate to the Football Licensing Authority (except those
dealing with the national membership scheme), and that the financial and manpower resources
necessary for the job are provided to the FLA.
(Para 121)
We recommend that the FLA and Home Office endeavour to fill one of the remaining vacancies
on the Authority with a person acknowledged by the supporters’ organisations to understand the
needs of ordinary football spectators.
(Para 123)
We recommend that, when section 13 of the Football Spectators Act is brought into force, the
FLA promote consistency and high standards of safety at grounds.
(Para 126)
One of our principal conclusions from this inquiry is that football badly needs an honest broker
between the competing interests of clubs, police, local authorities and Government. We are
x lii
SECOND REPORT FROM
confident that the FLA, under its present Chairman, and with adequate financial backing from
the Government can play this role. We recommend that the Government realise the inherent
potential in the FLA to improve the future of the game.
(Para 129)
x liii
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
RELATING TO THE REPORT
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY 1991
Members present:
Sir John Wheeler, in the Chair
Mr David Ashby
Mr Joe Ashton
Mr Gerry Bermingham
Dame Janet Fookes
Mr Roger Gale
Mr John Greenway
Mr Alan Meale
Mr Ivor Stanbrook
Mr Keith Vaz
Dr Mike Woodcock
Draft Report on Policing Football Hooliganism, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and
read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 12 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 read, amended, and agreed to.
Paragraph 18 read, amended, and agreed to.
Paragraphs 29 and 30 read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 56 and 57 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 73 read and agreed to.
x liv
SECOND REPORT FROM
Paragraph 99 read as follows:
Section 22(4) of the Football Spectators Act provides that courts may make restriction
orders in respect of offences committed outside England and Wales “unless it appears that
the conviction is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in that country questioning
the conviction'’. This means that the process of appeal can be exploited to prevent a
restriction order being imposed. This seems to us to be totally anomalous. Lord Ferrers
argued that it would be “an infringement of liberty” not to allow the restriction order to
be imposed after first conviction. We disagree. Offenders are not able to defer driving bans
by registering appeals or to stay out of prison because they appeal against their sentence.
We recommend that the Football Spectators Act 1989 be amended so that the corresponding
offences provision may be activated on first conviction in Scotland or abroad.
Paragraph disagreed to.
Paragraph 100 (now paragraph 99) read and agreed to.
Paragraph 101 (now paragraph 100) read, amended, and agreed to.
Paragraphs 102 to 106 (now paragraphs 101 to 105) read and agreed to.
Pauigraph 135 (now paragraph 134) read, amended, and agreed to.
R e so lve d .
That the Report, as amended, be the Second Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House on Friday 1 February.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No 116 (Select Committee (reports)) be applied
to the Report.
Several papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be
reported to the House.— (The Chairman.)
Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to the House.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 23 January at half past Ten o’clock
LIST OF WITNESSES
Monday 12 November 1990
F o o t b a l l A s s o c ia t io n
Mr
F A
Millichip, M r R H G Kelly and Mr K Evans
.......................................
F o o tba ll L eague
Mr W Fox, Mr A Sandford and Mr J Crawford......................................................
F o o t b a l l S u p p o r t e r s ’ A s s o c ia t io n
Mr
C
Brewin, Mr
S
Beauchampe and Mr
S
G a r r e tt..............................................
N a t io n a l F e d e r a t io n o f F o o t b a l l S u p p o r t e r s ’ C l u b s
C ll r A
M Kershaw, Mrs M Hartland and Mr
I
Todd..............................................
Wednesday 14 November 1990
A s s o c ia t io n o f C h ie f P o l ic e O f f ic e r s
Mr
C
J Anderton, CBE, QPM and Mr G M G eorge..............................................
P o l ic e S u p e r in t e n d e n t s ’ A s s o c ia t io n
Mr D Clarkson, QPM and Mr P G Wall
...............................
........................
P o l ic e F e d e r a t io n
M r R B Coyles and Mr P V O’Brien
..
..
..
..............................................
Wednesday 28 November 1990
H o m e O f f ic e
Rt Hon the Earl Ferrers, M r S Boys Smith, Mr J Goddard and Mr P Bolton
F o o t b a l l L ic e n s in g A u t h o r it y
Mr N Jacobs and Mr G D u n k le y .............................................................................
xlvi
SECOND REPORT FROM
LIST OF APPENDICES TO
THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
No
1 Extract from a letter to the Clerk of the Committee from Mr Philip Don,
Secretary, Association of Football League Referees and L in e sm e n ...............
2 Memorandum by the Bus and Coach Council
.............................................
3 Extract from a letter to the Clerk of the Committee from Mr T R P Rudin,
Secretary, Magistrates’ Association....................................................................
Printed in the United Kingdom by HM SO at H ansard Press
D d 0507570
1/91
C8
PS 1902560
PC 44083
HMSO publications are available from:
HMSO Publications Centre
(M ail and telephone orders only)
PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT
Telephone orders 071-873 9090
General enquiries 071-873 0011
(queuing system in operation for both numbers)
HMSO Bookshops
49 High H olbom , London, WC1V 6HB 071-873 0011 (counter service only)
258 Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2HE 021-643 3740
Southey House, 33 Wine Street, Bristol, BS1 2BQ (0272) 24306
9-21 Princess Street, Manchester, M60 8AS 061-834 7201
80 Chichester Street, Belfast, BT1 4JY (0232) 238451
71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh, EH3 9AZ 031-228 4181
HMSO’s Accredited Agents
(see Yellow Pages)
and through good booksellers
© P arliam entary copyright H ouse o f C om m ons 1991
A pplications fo r reproduction should be m ade to H M S O
ISBN 0 10 272991 3
TELEPHONE
CONVE R S A T I O N W I T H F I O N A GRAHAM.
734578
She worked with somebody called Ray Boyd who had phoned
ealier to say that they were having a look to see what
alternative accommodation was available.
I discussed the matter with her.
I explained that we were
looking at our own Court but it might be that other
accommodation might
be more convenient or indeed necessary.
She told me that Sue Harper was coming up on Monday and
that they were actively looking at alternatives.
She could
see the necessity in a major Inquest of this sort to have
sufficient space and not to allow the accommodation to be
so cramped as to create problems
I explained to her that from a personal point of view I
u
preferred to say at the Medico-Legal Centre, but one had
to
be realistic and it might be too small.
She seemed to have a very good appreciation of the
problems and the needs for ensuring that these Inquests are
conducted in a proper and satisfactory manner.
LESAAO
EILE NOTE . NORMAN THOMPSON WAS OH THE PHOHE TO RADIO SHEEffTTCT.T).
They informed him that
the Chief Constable had resigned, that
he had referred to the Coroner's Inquest as dealing with the
matter in greater detail and the radio station wanted to know
whether a date had yet been fixed.
I told Norman that a
date had not been fixed nor was I in a position to do so.
»
/
The Hillsborough Disaster: A Personal Account
Robert Forrest
Published in Quakers in Criminal Justice Newsletter No 19
June 1989, pages 1 2 - 1 5
Page: 1
It's about 3,30 pm on a very pleasant Saturday afternoon in
mid April. I am chairing the afternoon session of a training
workshop on investigating a drug abuse death which is being
held in a lecture theatre high up in the tower block of the
Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield. Brenda Whittaker, a
solicitor, has just started her talk on the legal aspects of
the investigation to the very mixed audience of 50 or so
solicitors,
forensic scientists,
pathologists and police
officers. I am feeling quite pleased with myself. The nine
months of work it has taken to organise the meeting are
paying off; it's going well, the question sessions have been
stimulating, lunch was good and people from the different
professions are talking to each other, which was part of the
object of the exercise. Suddenly my bleep goes off. “It's his
wife" is the witless comment from one of the pathologists in
the audience. Gritting my teeth, I go to a telephone and
answer the call. In fact, it is the "On Call" technician in
the laboratory. He tells me that something very unpleasant is
happening at Hillsborough Stadium, where Nottingham Forest
are playing Liverpool in the semi-final of the F. A. Cup.
There is crowd trouble, about 30 people are dead and the
hospital switchboard has declared a "majax" (Major Accident).
I go back in, as pale a sheet by
a colleague's later
account, and stop the speaker, tell the audience what is
happening, hand over the chair to a senior colleague and,
together with the members of the laboratory staff at the
meeting, go down to the laboratory. The police officers in
the audience vanish like snow off the proverbial dyke as they
follow their own emergency procedures.
Down in the laboratory we start to sort ourselves out. The
portable television we have makes it quite clear that there
is indeed a major disaster brewing.
Vague memories of
accounts of the Ibrox Stadium disaster make me think that
there may not actually be that much work for us, for the main
task may turn out to be one of counting the dead. However,
the two junior doctors come with me down to the casualty
department.
It isn't busy
(yet) although there is much
purposeful activity. I leave them there, awaiting the rush
that never quite materialises. Back in the laboratory we
discuss the possible scenarios that might develop and plan
how we will meet the peak demand which is likely, if there do
turn out to be a lot of
living casualties, to be in the
early evening as patients go to theatre and on Sunday
morning. As it turns out we do less work that afternoon than
we would on a normal Saturday.
About this time, I receive a
call from the Director of South Yorkshire Red Cross, in which
I am a medical officer. I am not needed at Hillsborough where
it has indeed become a matter of counting the dead, but it is
clear that there are already a large number of relatives and
friends who will need to be helped. I go and find the
hospital's duty administrator to remind her that the Red
Cross has members with a variety of skills that are at her
disposal, and check that she has the Headquarters unlisted
telephone number to hand.
I go back to the lecture theatre and help to draw the meeting
to a close. As might be expected, in such a group there is
P a g e 2
quite a lot of expertise relevant to "disaster medicine", and
a colleague from Nottingham makes the useful comment that
after the Ml air crash one unexpected problem that had to be
coped with was the influx of relatives from all over the UK.
After seeing the delegates on their way home, I go down to
the outpatient department and find that there is already a
problem with many people arriving to look for relatives.
After some discussion with an administrator and nursing
staff, I walk the 400 metres or so to South Yorkshire Red
Cross HQ and help to arrange the setting up of a limited
catering facility
in the outpatient department and the
provision of Red Cross Welfare workers there. Fortunately,
the "mashing tackle" for tea making has already loaded onto
suitable transport for another, routine job, and there is a
reasonable supply of food available. (Later that evening, as
relatives start arriving hungry after their journey, one of
the local pizza houses donates a good supply of pizzas which
are greatly welcomed by staff and relatives alike).
Eventually, I get home at about 10 pm and start thinking
about the next day's tasks. It is a long time since I did
anything that might be remotely described as grief counseling
and I have to turn to the books. Kubler - Ross, I don't find
particularly helpful. I do find a few articles on talking to
people with cancer that have some useful hints in them, but
the most useful paper is a very personal account
in the
British Medical Journal by a psychiatrist, whose home is in
Lockerbie, of his own reaction to the Pan-Am Jumbo crash and
the techniques he used for helping others to cope with their
experiences. Also helpful is an old paperback describing the
experiences of US Army medical and nursing staff, including
psychiatrists, who served in Vietnam.
Sleep doesn't come
easily that night.
Sunday morning dawns, and I am just getting out of the
shower, when the telephone goes. I am needed at Red Cross HQ
urgently. I struggle into my Red Cross uniform, grab my
stethoscope, torch and ophthalmoscope, and am looking for my
uniform cap when the door bell rings. I bid goodbye to the
family and am treated to a terrifying high speed ride to Red
Cross Headquarters. There, the immediate problem is a very
upset member, who was one of the first helpers to get to
Hillsborough as the disaster was still evolving. I help her
talk through her distressing experiences over the next hour
or so, feeling somewhat incompetent as I do so. Next, I am
assigned to go to one of the reception centres that Social
Services have set up for relatives of victims coming to
Sheffield. I go to pick up the "doctor box", that should
contain
drugs for use when we provide medical cover for big
events and utter a curse, regretfully unmuffled, when I find
it empty. Later, I learn that most of the drugs that were in
it had been approaching their expiry dates and that it was in
the process of being restocked. Making a remark to the effect
that a doctor's most useful therapeutic tool is his own
personality, and feeling the inadequacy of my own personality
and training for the task ahead, I get into the ambulance
that is going the reception centre. Thankfully the trip, this
time, is a little more sedate. At the reception centre there
Page: 3
are an awful lot of carers from various disciplines milling
around and getting themselves organised, but, as yet no
relatives. I report to the police inspector in charge and set
about
finding other doctors.
Four of us,
from various
organisations get together and discuss what has happened and
the medical problems we are likely to have to cope with. I am
the only one wearing a uniform and I reflect a little on the
pro's and con's of that. At least it has a lot of useful
pockets.
One
of
us,
a
general
practitioner,
has
had
considerable post-graduate training in psychiatry and he goes
off to the Medico-Legal Centre where relatives are being
taken to identify bodies. We decide that one problem is that
people may come down from Liverpool without a supply of any
therapeutic
drugs
they might
be
taking and we make
arrangements to ensure that we can help anyone in that
situation. I acquire a limited supply of essential drugs,
including the sleeping drug temazepam. I have mixed feelings
about that drug; I have seen the stomach contents of far too
many people
who have takenfatal overdoses ofit along with
other drugs and alcohol.
Someone produces an excellent
leaflet on bereavement published by Cruse, and I settle down
to read it. About the only useful things I do are to talk at
some length to a police officer who had been at Hillsborough
about his experiences
and doleout headache
tablets to
relatives and a couple of social workers. Eventually, I
am
transferred to another, smaller, reception centre where I do
talk
to
a
few
relatives
as
well
as
discussing
the
psychodynamics of the
situation
with a group of social
workers and a priest.
Finally, I am sent to the Medico-Legal Centre, a building I
visit quite often in the course of my everyday work. I form
part of a team with a clinical psychologist and a social
worker who accompany relatives whilst they
are taken to
identify a body and whilst their formal statements are being
taken by police officers afterwards. I am impressed by the
competent and caring way in which the officers carry out
their difficult
task.
I also spend some time with my
colleagues
in
pathology,
discussing
the
forensic
investigation of the disaster. Rather to my surprise, my
primary professional training turns out to be very useful.
Many of the relatives ask me questions about the mode of
death in particular cases and about the state of the body
they have just viewed. A number of practical problems of
accommodation and transportation come up and are sorted out
with the help of the police and Social Services. I see my
first "Sun" reporter in the flesh, and whilst he doesn't much
resemble his "Spitting Image" stereotype,
I am not over
impressed by his behaviour or his appearance . I get home at
about 11.45 pm. I fall asleep easily but wake up shouting in
the small hours.
The next day is
an anti-climax. I spend some time at Red
Cross HQ discussing how we responded to the disaster and the
need to support and debrief our staff. The hospital, as a
whole, is relatively quiet although the Intensive Care Unit
is busy. That night, for the first time for many years, I
need a hypnotic drug to get me to sleep.
Page: 4
The following day, Tuesday, a detective sergeant brings me a
large cardboard box containing 94 blood samples from the
Medico-Legal Centre. I find the image of 94 lives reduced to
plastic envelopes containing small tubes of blood arranged in
serried rows on a laboratory bench profoundly disturbing,
paradoxically far more so than the grand guignol scenes in
the autopsy room that I witnessed on Sunday.
The next few days are taken up with a concentrated burst of
professional activity as I get involved with the scientific
investigation of the disaster and, to a limited extent, with
the clinical care of some of the survivors.
An
evening
debriefing session later in the week with the
Red Cross is
useful and interesting. There are copies of all the national
newspapers,
with
their
horrific
colour
photographs,
available. Not for the first time, I wonder about the total
desirability of a "free press", when journalists and their
editors
show such
an apparent
lack of
discretion and
responsibility.
Cards arrive at home
from a number of
Friends. I am touched and helped to learn that they are
thinking of me.
Elements of farce attend the visit of Prince Charles to the
hospital later in the week. All the staff who
were involved
in the hospital's response to the disaster are asked to
assemble in the main hall on the ground floor wearing clean
uniforms and their clip on identity cards. I have to be
photographed for a new one having lost several years ago the
one issued to me on my appointment. My views on sections of
the British press are not dispelled by the activities of a
photographer who manages, albeit without too much difficulty,
to persuade a buxom student nurse to adopt a less than
decorous pose whilst he uses up most of a roll of film on her
during the long wait before the royal party arrive.
How can I pull all my experiences of this event and its
aftermath together? Even more than a month later I haven't
been able to reduce it to a coherent whole. It remains in my
mind as a vivid set of disjointed images and memories; an
exhausted but still coping police inspector, a red eyed
social worker, a distraught mother, a fleck of blue paint on
a victim's pullover and the strange mixture of smells
(incense,
boiled
cabbage,
scent
and
cheap
alcohol)
in
Sheffield Cathedral during the memorial service
are just a
few of them. Two things I am sure of; knowing you are in the
thoughts of Friends does help in times of
stress and there
is little point in trying to establish rights and wrongs or
to find a scapegoat following events like Hillsborough: "Any
man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
And therefore ask not for whom the bell tolls ; It tolls for
thee".
Page: 5
Robert Forrest is a member of Barnsley Meeting and QICJ. He
is a Consultant at the Royal Hal lamshire Hospital and a
Lecturer in Forensic Toxicology at Sheffield University. He
is a medical officer with the Ambulance Unit of South
Yorkshire Red Cross.
Page: 6
COPING AFTER
WHEN TO SEEK HELP
Family and friends may helpyou all they can. But you may feel the need for extra help.
We can offer this, but only if you ask.
You should ask for help if:
• You feel you can't handle your deep feelings.
• You feel you aren't getting back together over a period of time.
• You continue to feel tense, confused, empty or exhausted.
• You have nightmares and can't sleep.
Liverpool also have a number (24 hrs) that can be
contacted
HILLSBOROUGH
• You've no-one to share your feelings with.
• Your relationships suffer, or you develop sexual problems.
• You have accidents.
• You drink, smoke, or take drugs to excess.
Information to help anyone affected by the
Hillsborough tragedy
issuedby Family & Community Services Sheffield
• Your work suffers.
• Others close to you are not recovering.
Even if you're helping others, you could become emotionally and physically exhausted.
Don't hesitate to seek help. No problem is too big or small for us to helpyou deal with.
Everyone needs help — it is nothing to be ashamed of. Anything you say will be totally
confidential.
FINALLY, REMEMBER — You're the same person you were before this tragedy. There
is a light at the end of the tunnel. HELP IS AVAILABLE.
(051) 225 3413
or 225 3414
Both numbers are staffed by trained and experienced social workers. They
will help with material problem s or if you are upset and just w ant to talk.
Anything you say or any help you are given will b e com pletely private and
confidential. No problem is too big or too small for us to help with.
Sheffield FCs Dept, acknow ledge the help of Kent Social Services
Department an d other Authorities in preparing this leaflet
Printing donated by Kall-Kwik Printing, Sheffield (0742) 701582
Paper 'Spatial1donated by Guppy Paper, Leeds, (0532) 823111
Plates donated by Offset Plates 89, Sheffield, (0742) 430444
Someone you know may have been personally involved in helping those w ho died
or those w ho were injured in the Hillsborough Disaster on 15 A pril. Alternatively
you may know someone w ho died or w ho has been injured.
For all those involved in those situations the experience w ill be a very personal one
that w ill remain w ith them for life.
_ l:her people have been through similarexperiences and come through them. Your
experience was a very personal one but we hope that this leaflet w ul help you to
understand how other people have reacted in sim ilar situations. It w ill also show
you how you can help yourself to begin to recover.
EVERYONE FEELS THESE THINGS
- of damage to ourselves and those we love
Fear
- of beingleft alone
- of breaking down
- of something similar happening again
Helplessness
Grief
Guilt
Shame
- what can you do in the face of such a tragedy?
- for death, injury and loss
- for being alive, for not being hurt
- for seeming helpless or emotional
Anger
- at what has happened and at who allowed it to happen
- WHY ME?
Memories
Hope
- of people you saw or knew and loved
- for the future
Everyone has these feelings. They are especially powerful when people have died in
circumstances like those at Hillsborough. And even stronger when you depended on the
person who has died, if your relationship was going through a bad patch. These feelings may
ntensify if you were already coping with other problems.
I
letting these fellings come out is part of the natural healing process. It doesn't mean you will
lose your self control, but if you try to stop them coming out you could end up feeling even
worse. Crying will help you to cope, too.
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL FEELINGS
SUPPORT
— You'll need othe r people's physical and em otional help. D on't
reject it. It can help to talk to others w ho have had sim ilar
experiences.
PRIVACY
— Sometimes you w ill ju s tn e e d to b e a lo n e ,o rw ith y o u rfa m ily
and friends.
Even if you haven't fe lt these em otions, you r body m ight react to the crisis. This can
even happen m onths later.
Some com m on problem s are tiredness, sleeplessness, bad dreams, loss o f m em ory
o r concentration, dizziness, palpitations, shaking, d iffic u lty in breathing, ch okin g i r ^ ^
throat and chest, nausea, diarrhoea, m uscular tension, w hich m a y le a d to h e a d a c h e ^^B
backaches, o r neckaches, dragging in the wom b, menstrual disorders, change in sexual
interest.
^ ^ i t remember, overactivity, o r letting yo ur feelings rem ain num b, w ill delay your
recovery. The pain o f the w o u n d w ill lead to healing. You may even com e o u t of this
w iser and stronger.
FAMILY AND FRIENDS
THINGS TO DO . . . AND NOT TO DO
You m ight make new friends as a result o f th e tragedy. But it can also p u t a strain on
existing relationships. You m ight feel you 're n ot g etting enough support, o r th at you
can't give as m uch help as o th e r people need. You m ight d rin k more, o r use drugs.
D O N 'T b o ttle up your feelings. Make sure you express your em otions.
MAKING YOUR FEELINGS EASIER TO BEAR
D O N 'T expect the m em ories to vanish — they w ill stay w ith you fo r a long tim e.
NUMBNESS
— Your m in d m ight not be able to take everything in at once. At
first you m ight feel num b, and the tragic events may even seem
unreal. People sometimes w rongly seethis numbness aseither
"b e in g stro n g " o r even "n o t caring".
ACTIVITY
— lt'sb e stto ke e p a ctiye .H e lp in g o the rsm ig h th e lp yo u .B u td o n 't
overdo i t — it could detract from the helpyou need fo r yourself.
REALITY
— We have to come to term s w ith the reality o f a tragedy such as
H illsborough. G oingto the fun e ra l,go ing to where it happened,
w ill help you to do this.
TALKING IT OVER — G radually you w ill need to talk and th in k about y o u rj
experiences. You'll probably dream about them too. C hildre n *
may w ant to d ra w a b o u tth is e v e n t,o r even play games about it.
D O N 'T avoid talkin g about w ha t happened. T h in k about w hat happened and talk
it over w ith others.
These are things you should try to do:
• Let your ch ild re n share your feelings and express th e ir own. They may be feeling
m uch the same as you.
• Take tim e to rest, and be w ith friends.
• Tell friends, fam ily, o r counsellors how you feel.
• As you begin to recover, keep your life as norm al as possible.
• Send the ch ild re n back to school. Let them carry on as norm ally as possible.
pda special warning. Accidents are m ore com m on w hen people are un d er stress. Be
specially careful w hen d riving ; be m ore careful around th e home. This m ight sound
unlikely, b ut it is im portant.
SOME MAIN EVENT TIMINGS
TI ME
~
EXTERNAL
INTERNAL
X
- HILLSBOROUGH
1200.48
Supporters arriving slow trickle.
1356.33
Supporter volume entering ground increasing.
1435.22
Perimeter gates open access to turnstyles.
1435.30
Dense crowds outside.
1438.48
1439.31
><
Strong surge along dividing fence Encl. 3 & 4.
Boy being carried through Gate C.
1440.09
Beach ball in Enclosure 3.
1440.10
Further surge in Enclosure
3 & 4.
1440.26
All Perimeter gates appear closed.
1445.03
Police land Rover.
1448.04 E
Gate *C * opened to eject supporter/others enter
1448.31 E
Gate C closed.
1449.53
"Hole" develops within Enclosure 3.
1450.26
Considerable crowd movement in Enclosure 3.
1451.07
Liverpool team announced.
1451.47
Nottingham Forrest team announced.
1452.06 E
Gate 'C' opened large numbers of supporters enter.
1453.40
L. hand perimeter gates open supporters entering.
1454.08
1455.17
Liverpool team onto the pitch.
R. hand perimeter gate seen open.
1455.22
Nottingham Forrest team onto the pitch.
1455.49
Strong surge from tunnel into Enclosures
1457.40
3 & 4.
Gate 'C ' Closed.
1459.04
1459.12 E
Gate 4
open.
Gate'C' open
supporters entering.
1459.30
Gate 3
open.
1459.30
Kick off.
1459.51
Gate 1 opened to allow supporters into Enclosure.
1504.52
Peter Beardsley's shot hits cross bar.
1505.24
Supt. Greenwood on pitch and match stopped
1507.15
Surge in Enclosure 3.
!!?,€*.*<
,
' fc r * 4
jfy q ir. 03
<£L«
- - iif
t**
€*■„
C%*â
*?-» «. ;
^ ■ T
O
ft O L ^ d l- ^
K v \^
^s S s , - k s s s ^ T t^ :
U dS ^K Vr~. K ^ ? ^ S S ^ \^ K T vm \^
V A V U ^
CV ' ^ £ > ^ . X /
vl4
•
h
^
e
1 U JL /\
“The signals of war are often partial,
favour of a costly and dangerous
c o n tr a c t by a B r itis h firm in
mission to repossess the islands.; The
confused and contradictory. Warnings
Edinburgh, Christian Salveson Co,
of imminent conflict can be lost in- the- *
landed on South Georgia to remove > . key factor was a sense of national
general noise of international affairs,h u m i l i a t i o n c o m p o u n d e d by
'w hat^-as left of the old whaling
explicit threats dismissed as- bluster
confidence that Britain would be seen
statio n s a t L eith, S trom ness and
while intelligence assessments are
to be u p h o l d i n g t h e n o r m s of
Husvik.
caught in traditional patterns of
international behaviour.”
rgum ents intensified, m atters
t h o u g h t , l i m i t e d by i n a d e q u a t e
Thejunta had occupied the islands in
escalated, then came invasion of
information and contained by! sheerthe belief “that this was part of a subtle
th e F a lk la n d s , th e H aigh
disbelief that the adversary; could1
bargaining process rather than force
diplom atic shuttles, peace-m aking
possibly resort to violence, f v
^
m a je u r e ” . .I t s own f r e e d o m of
efforts by Peru, the British task force,
‘‘Once war begins the signals of w ar
b a r g a in in g m a n o e u v re was
“landings at San Carlos, air and sea
become explicit and brutal, tending to
undermined from the start by popular
, battles, the final push for Stanley
drown the subtleties of the original1
delight at the fulfilment of a deeply
■ punctuated by the horrors o f" the - cherished national goal.
dispute and confound mediators*."
j
3*
x Belgrano, Goose Green . and. Bluff
Britain failed because it did nofei
But
th
e
writers
believe
that
“in
one
' Cove. j
* '
^recognise the coming signals of warp/
- i ? Galtieri, the Scotch-whisky-swilling se n se A r g e n t i n a ’s s t r a t e g y h ad
Argentina failed because it believed 1
succeeded”. The war hadenabled it to
president, holed up in the Playa de
th a t t h e s e s i g n a 1s c o u 1d b e >
attract international attention to the
M ayo, B uenos A ires, who made
controlled.”
! j
:
Falklands issue, convince the General
1 desperate telephone efforts in the
*dyingdays of the Falklands occupation; ,■ Assembly of the United Nations that , "S The authors make no attempt to^
come to a definitive conclusion on thei
to rally the temporary Falklands j t h i s was a d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g a
true ownership of the islands. “Wee
Governor, Brigadier General Mano long-term settlement and put pressure
>,on the United Kingdom to negotiate f doubt if such a conclusion , can; betBenjamin
Menendez,
had
been
warned
no
r e a c h e d , tho ug jh m a n y h av e l ^ n o t ta take on Britain ,by President seriously. ItVeven gained: Americatried... Neither casef is watertight.- Ini
support
for.
this
stance,
f
v
'
Reagan:
practice, ownership since the islands
'«
However?the?
resolution&had
no.,
■ P r e s i d e n t R e a g an u rg e d an
were first discovered-has been;settled,
^binding
force.
The
British
Government
alternative to forcei saying, correctly
by force/’; <;■><r? , * '
now
saw
no
reason
to
discuss
tu~
. as it turned out, that Britain would not
<5* (Faber and Faber; £17.50) .
future
of
th
e
Falklands
with
anyo
■ negotiate- under threats- andv would
A
tters that are nottheir
ead of leaving local
t officers to get on with
' ey try to second-guess
ionals from a basis of
ignorance. Many; of
•wing councillors are
their own careers and
:nsate for their failure
their muscles in local
t a question of Tory
:ur. It is usually a
nsible Labour versus
Labour. For example,
es moved out of
& escapesi Blunkett’s
council; but several
Dtherham, which is also
cur but has a sensible
ier the leadership of the
Jack Layden.
not the Government,
ed local democracy,
medy now is to screw
fin even further. It is
try to control local
t by= revenue alone;
expert at finding ways
’ curbs, with the help of
:ounting and expensive
. icure itself must be coniLw a start, the Governrealise that it blunre p e a l i n g the- la w
fcouncil powers were
Obligations laid down by
[ councils had to seek
for all borrowing. No
should be permitBng as councils have
assets, such as- the
of acres of housing
[a Labour minister who
councillors that “the
lover”. The news still
Iched some of the town
Mthrifts. They are over
tone discipline and Chris
Just cut them down to
f *,* ; ! *x ^ f’
V( ■Wvvf
•*'
‘i r
w
cultures, but not at the expense of
their general education., «
; Another mother has described *
r h er experience of m ulticultural
education^ Her child, was one of*
three white children in a'class. Of
the remainder, only three spoke
To suggest that she was acti English a t homey the others spoke
vated by racism when she asked ' a variety of Indian languages. : j
th at her daughter be moved to
another school is intolerable. The , Not surprisingly* the, teacher
fact th a t the child’s father is half.\ was struggling, to teach .anybody
West Indian and t h e . family’s 7 anything. A t the end of the first
friends are mostly black makes it. 1i term, the parents were told that
■ their daughter was “doing well”
doubly so.
because she‘ had managed to
..'.v Themother objected to the child, ? complete
a wooden puzzle. (She
wasting her school hours learning
p o e m s i n U r d u a n d b e i n g had completed a similar puzzle at
, instructed about- Pakistani veg home 18 months previously .) ;
What the assorted experts have
etables. It had nothing to do witk
race but everything to do with . done to our children’s educatidff
language. Parents are happy for s over th e years is- little short of
NOW that the Charity Commis : their children to learn about other criminaL
"
-■•■■■- •. ■ ’
s i o n e rs p l a n to i n v e s t i g a t e
■iif- *}
Oxfem’s political campaigning,
4l
perhaps the charity’s employees
will stop spending so much time
EVERYONE si^pathisesw ith the points ofphilosophy? Why are they
arguing the" political toss.
• of
—bereaved
’ — - j parents. Itis high- so unwilling tot face the tru th ?,
Whether it is illegal is a matter grief
for the Commission. However, I time howeverthat. Liverpool fans • One of the eye-witnesses* who
have no doubt that such campaign stopped using? such, bereavement ‘ have .written to me says; “On the
to I n s u l t an d h a r a s s d ec ent main road into Sheffield; people in
ing is stupid. The task of a charity
is to get on with helpingthe needy, ■ poUcemen.” ';.
v*- i -'1 Langsett, Stocksbridge, Deepcar,
O ughti bridge and Middlewood
not spout political sermons
It is disgraceful that police time - saw Liverpool supporters leavi—
- Oxfanr says its objective is “to should*have bee n .w a ste d on
pubs worse for drink and s
educate the public”. What arro outrageous allegations against the the
gance. If I require political educa South Yorkshire police chief, Peter carrying cans of beer at 2 45 p.m.
tion, I shall not seek it from th e' Wright. Everyone with a scrap of They could not possibly have been
Oxfam brigade who spend so much ’sense knows that drink was a in the ground oy 3 p.m.” These
were the fans| who caused the
of their time- writing letters to con trib u to ry fa cto r a t Hills problems'
and/ the*- soberj early
newspapers.•
borough: whycrucify the police for arrivals paid the penalty. - • ; ;
They seem incapable of realising saying so?
. .
; Hillsborough was an appalling
that they are damaging their own
What do Liverpudlians want? A • tragedy but it will not become less
cause. It is no part of a charity’s
1role to be either pro-sanctions or declaration that no Liverpool fans : so by hunting for: scapegoats, f
......— ‘
,
anti-sanctions, pro-Palestinian or have ever been known to indulge. , .
anti-Palestinian. These are conten in alcohol; that they spend their AS IN law, so m war, the longest
tious issues on which opposing entire leisure time sipping1bitter- purse finally .wins.— Mahatma
lemon and debating the- finer Gandhi ’ ; . }
views are held.
4
TRUST the Commission for
to; insult a
Cleveland m other because
she tried to act in h e r child’s
best interests.
r ?? ■
lR acial Equality
BERNARD
DINEEN
Talking
politics
Hillsborough truths
I i
?2_
OTi
SI
0&<i-
2 -V '
B r
<L
•
fiHit0]
0
OGl
o o c)
3 ?
0X0
m
?/
0Z(
?L
0 ° l £),<]
71
00%
\piÛ'4
&■
0
/? .
f
/
e
t
.
s
J
-
t u b
^?.
>
^ ^
^
$ -U & ) / / y
fj*
< p f~
9/ „
?/•*
r r
?V
/£?.
%$-
/^ <
*P-l -
??£
&^r{Z.C/ rJL
^T "
S?
ft-
^ 5 “
fi+rti
} ( j
%
%
■Xitr-t^n,f
-r*
icJ
'f y ^ L
Q,
4
fl" Q -
f-
V />
— 1l3 / ^
f
f fj
% f k r
fat'O'?'**
J ~ £ ^ j2 ~ z r ^ ;
CITY OF SHEFFIELD - MEMORANDUM
From
Mark Tiddy
To
Date
Ref
Tel Ext
27th September, 1988
FIN/MT/MM
4635
Ref
Dr. Popper
DEPARTMENTAL SUMMARY - CLAIMS SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST 24 WEEKS (24/52)
UNIT
(40) Coroner
NOTES:
AD2(FIN)
(AD2ACM)
BUDGET
PROFILE
EXPENDITURE
1500
709
ACTUAL
EXPENDITURE
VARIATION
(+/-)
900
Includes pathologist payments May - July inclusive.
+ 191
BASE=100%
%
127
%y
£ //
0
■
ft c r-f
£ £ c
<1
-
I
/■
f t
• K )
C ,J / ^
-W
r
$ /? A O )£ c C ,
J
( J / c j
*
t i J
f
Gxg&*,r-
f
/ V
O
,
X
£ I
■£
/ ^ X
,
‘
6J ■
/7 ~ U ,„
/> j ,
,^
A
; ^
k
*
I c / °
__
^
/^ ^
U
T »z
M -M V
■?
n «
/ * * - * !
/ r/?
^
K 2 3
7
/
/r
fl,
-7
\
/^f/r 2
'
/
/,< ,< :
I
^
V
/
/
Z. , . SJ
7
// 44 7J >
?
ir r J
u
/-\
, W 'a i
Z>
■/
! V 3 i
i rf r
7# 2
w>
,y t r*^
/ d
_^
i iJ '*
£.<»***+*
—
n
I^tA
/I Z
fn A , ^ u / ^
f
/■■( . j/VW
* ^ "
'
‘U
’- ^
6
/uc
^
^
C
,—L I/O - r/ :^
^ '
ji+ i
„
(U z.
'
L*>'i
^ ' Caw ^ ^ T '
; UUO- 0 »~
/Y Y
t
■
- - J *
> ^ J
p
u*s4<
'
. /✓
v/
/
"
^
/ ? * '’ '
7
3
/ ' ''
t*r>
_
*
_z9
^
#**
s* ^ )
/‘^ " i "
I 1
//, ,
P e o ^ i/t^ L -L
/&*-* <9
A ? r?
i
Jo
^
cr
' w >
fjCH
W
^
' rT%-
/r;/7
^
/V^K»n)^“--
A J 7
^
^
, ,^<
/ W i - ° v ]
2
, 4
!
fi/T -*
^
~
C^°
O
21
-? t
.o f O
/7 ^ /
*UWI
.
7
^ (
(l? k ' l J
j%'S'H I
/
y^ W^
r
/?
^ / ^
.,
/4'X "'/
--
^ ^
£ o f^ J ^ h
^
l* T ( j’i i i ^ r ' ^ k
t
0 ,
^tvlv?
. ^
J^74'
^
fiuL £
■---£<*/
^ y / C4P*' I '* '
^
w v"
^
r
/# ^
"
d-
^ ~~ ^
?
\ £
f'C icM
1^
/?
II
J 0
i ra~® - 7 z
/ -*■
lA
'? J / V -is
t
'*
'
" '
oiS~'
>
H
ysT^°
/ro -
^
& *A .
J
'I
^4
&
r °
/^ 9 -
X
^
<5^
* ■j7;£ -
y
;
z/
f t S H 2_
h
)
1
/^ a
J*£
1
iy M
- °?
l s y £ r
I
fC
jO ti
?
^
/^ > K ~ ,fe ^ /U J
O'1** /h*d
7
tw
‘~ &
i $p
I
"
'
f^
a Jz? L
fltfi-
2.
&
%
r s
iilA
j
f i / U *4
/f/z . /)
/ W . /-i
i/
''*£*£* £
h /v I
/,!- 3 * ^
H .7H I
^
p s t4 L
fr /¥
I
f:
/9 a ^ ^ j3->sJ l
/h J l fi* r , & * e .
1 r /^ ~
/s f ) - al
~ u~
; r/? '
^
C & o -J f t /u h 4 / ^
©~i y^/ y/t/
]£~2t>.
Q-)
f
/" Z ^
HILLSBOROUGH - INQUESTS
j
i/o f — ^
SUMMARY QF EVIDENCE - PROFORMA
WITNESS NAME
NOMINAL
DAY
NO
DATE
CODE
NATURE OF EVIDENCE (e.g. Supporter, Relative etc)
ASPECTS
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
BACKGROUND
□
(A) STADIUM
Al.
HISTORY
A4.
PROPOSED ALTERATIONS C D
A6.
PREVIOUS EPISODES
A7.
LICENSING □
(B) TRANSPORT & ROADS
| 1
(D) DEPLOYMENT - POLICE
88
(E) DEPLOYMENT - CLUB
88
(F) DATA
□
A2.
□
A3. ALTERATIONS □
A5. PREVIOUS MAJOR EVENTS i
1956 □
1981 □
1987 l~1 1988 rzi
fC) PUB SURVEY □
□
□
f i . leppings
LAYOUT
cm
89
IZD
89
La n e
F2.
PERIMETER GATES Q
F3. HORSES
F4. CONCERTINA GATES
A
F5. TERRACING
[Z]
B
□
< = □
F6. FIELD & POLICE
n
□
F7. RESCUE/RESPONSE
IG\ DECEASED
61. NO & LOCATION
G2. ENTRY TIMES
G3. REMOVAL
DECEASED BY NAME
(H) HSE FINDINGS
3.
VIDEO
4.
SUPPORTERS
1981
□
□
|
|
4A. PAST HISTORY
_____
LJ
1988
4B. TRAVEL
□
□
1989
□
4C. LEPPINGS LANE □
4D. LEPPINGS LANE BUILD UP
4E. CONCOURSE/TUNNEL
4F. TERRACE
£D
PERCEPTION
4G. RESCUE & RESPONSE
5.
STADIUM
CLUB
□
POLICE
□
□
M W T W
□
CRUSH
□
EASTWOOD
□
SHEFFIELD CC
Q
□
I
PAST HISTORY
POLICE
7.
POLICE CONTROL ROOM
8.
LEPPINGS I.AWT?
E D
CLUB
PUBLICAN □
SHOPKEEPERS
OB
OB
»
□
□
TURNSTILE OP
PROGRAM SELLER
SECURITY
CLUB ROOM
POLICE
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
- MERSEYSIDE
HORSE
STEWARD
|___ |
ST JOHNS
SYMAS
LINESMAN
PLAYER
POLICE -
RESPONSE RESCUE
POLICE CONTROL ROOM
TURNSTILE OP |
BALLBOY
B
□
| POLICE
REFEREE
f
OTHER |
j
MEDIA
TRACK
CONTROL ROOM
BA B B TK P
CRUSH
ST JOHNS
SYMAS
MEDICS
POLICE
OTHER
SPECIFY
□
SPECIFY
14.
SPECIFY
□
EXPERTS
HSE
□
OTHER
OTHER j
I
SPECIFY
CROWD BEHAVIOUR
EFFECT OF ALCOHOL
ALCOHOL LEVEL
BEHAVIOUR INDIVIDUAL
STRESS - DECISIONS
16.
POLICE
CLUB
11. TKBBAfTK
15.
RESIDENTS E D
RESIDENT/SUPPORTERS
CONCOURSE/TUNNEL
13.
ED
LEPPINGS LANK BUILD TTP
FOOT
12.
DOCUMENTS Q J
1
9.
ED
□
6.
1
I
OTHER | | SPECIFY
___
SPECIFY
___
• *
• •
|
QUESTIONS BY;
OTHER COMMENTS:
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
91
26th April
SLP/JT.
MG 90/3865D.
Office of Population Censuses and Survey.
St. Catherine’s House,
10 Kingsway,
London. W C . 2B 6J P .
Dear Mr. Prendergast,
Re: MARTIN TRAYNOR, KESTER BALL AND KEVIN WILLIAMS.
Thank you for your letter of the 2nd of April received to-day.
I have made the amendments to the Rev.99's-
As requested
I confirm however that I spoke to you on the telephone and explained to you
that the reason why I had referred to the stepfather of Kevin Williams was
that I understood that although no formal adoption arrangements had been
made, this lad had been living as part of the family and presumably had been
looking to Mr. Williams as his dad for a considerable period of time.
You confirmed that if there were any repercussions with the family,
would be dealt with by you.
Yours sincerely,
S . L .Popper,
H.M. Coroner.
BAGAAY
these
opes
■
■
■
■
■
I
■
O FFIC E O F P O P U L A T IO N
C E N S U S E S & SURVEYS
St Catherine's House
10 Kingsway
London W C 2 B 6JP
Telephone: 0 7 1 -2 4 2 0 2 6 2
General Register Office
Extension:
G T N :3042
Fax Ext: 2 1 6 7
Dr S L Popper
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
Sheffield
S3 7ET
Our Ref: MG 90/3865D
Date: 22 April 1991
Dear Dr Popper
MARTIN TRAYNOR
XESTEK BALL
KEVIN WILLIAMS
I am writing in connection with the certificates after inquest you
issued in respect of the deaths of the above-mentioned who died at
Hillsborough Football Ground on 15 April 1989. The certificates
have been forwarded to this Office by Mr M Rigby, superintendent
registrar for Sheffield registration district as it is now over 12
months since the deaths occurred and the Registrar General's
written authority for the registration of the deaths is required.
May I refer you to space 6 in Part 1 of your certificates. First,
as you may be aware, following the introduction of the Registration
of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Amendment) Regulations 1982 it has
been the practice in the case of any deceased child under the age
of 16 to record in the register of deaths the words "son (or
daughter) of ..... " followed by the names and occupations of the
parents of the deceased. However, you will see that this
information has been recorded in respect of the deaths of Martin
Traynor and Kester Ball who were over the age of
16 years. In the circumstances I would be grateful if you would
delete any reference to the deceased’s parents names and
occupations.
In the case of Kevin Williams who was under 16 years,
the Regulations make no provision to record the name of a Step
parent and I would be grateful of you would delete the words
"stepson of James Stephen Williams, an Engineer,".
Would you please initial your amendments. A pre-paid reply
envelope is enclosed for the return of the certificates.
Thank you for your assistance.
Yours sincerely
25 AHilL 1991.
Dr.3.L.Popper,
South Yorkshire Coroner,
Sear Dr. Popper,
........ .further tc iny letter dated 24th. April 1990» and- your acknowledging reply
dated 2 7 th. April 1990.........
I suppose I ought to have written earlier, 'but other things do press on my lite and I
do not have as much time at my keybaora as i would like.
You can well imagine from my previous letter, that J. was highly delighted at the
courage of the jury involved in the Hillsborough Disaster inquest. I did not need to
he in your courtroom to have formed the same views as that jury, and the accidental
verdict is one that I wholeheartedly agreed with when it ca;ne to my attention near
the Giid of la.s“t Lionth*
In this age where the aggrieved and grieving pursue a greed oriented avenue of;
"fuilt" "blame" and with compensation their goal - a completely healthless scenario
has come about. Your dear jury foreman on the 28th. March this year struct a nc e
blow against this situation by ;aaking the position of the greedy less firm as they
follow their cause in the civil courts.
Ky best regards. I remain,
Yours sincere^,
?/
HER MAJESTY’S CORONER
For the County of West Yorkshire
(Western District)
Dr. S. L. Popper,
H. M. Coroner,
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD.
S3 7ET
CITY COURTS
THE TYRLS
BRADFORD BD1 1LA
Tel: 0274-391362
My ref: JAT/AP
Your ref: SLP/LPL
3 April 1991
Dear Stefan,
It was kind of you to write and to telephone yesterday. I hope that my being there and
having discussions was of help. Certainly all the comments I hear are very positive as to the
way the inquest was conducted and I do congratulate you on seeing it through so well.
Kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
J. A. Turnbull
H. M. CORONER
TELEPHONE CALL T(jKATHERINE ROBERTS, HOME SECRETARY'S OFFICE
TUESDAY, 26 MARCH 1991
I complained t h a t I had w r i t t e n and faxed a l e t t e r t o Mr Rowland
on 26 November 1990.
Having r e c e i v e d no response I d is c u s s e d th e
m a tt e r with h is o f f i c e ( l e a r n i n g t h a t he had broken h is le g , which
I r e g r e t t e d of c o u r s e ) .
Re-faxed i t on 19 December 1990 t o fax no.
907 127 32190, and have had no r e p l y , not even an acknowledgement
to d a t e .
Quite a p a r t from th e f a c t t h a t I have been involved in
th e Hillsborough in q u e s t s when we have been arguing over minutes,
I f i n d i t t o t a l l y u n a cce pta ble t h a t such a delay should occur and
a p a r t from which I wanted to hear on th e subst an ce of t h e l e t t e r .
I s a i d I wanted th e m a tt e r taken up a t a high level and i n v e s t i g a t e d
and d e a l t w it h .
She s a i d she was in a meeting, she was in th e Home
S e c r e t a r y ' s o f f i c e and t h a t she would r i n g back.
28 March
Our Ref:
SLP/LPL
Superintendent R egistrar
Surrey Place
SHEFFIELD
SI
Dear Mr Rigby
HILLSBOROUGH INQUESTS
I e n c lo s e 95 Form REV.99s in r e sp e c t o f th e deceased.
Thank you very much fo r your c o-op eratio n in f a c i l i t a t i n g the
r eg istr a tio n .
Yours s in c e r e ly
S L POPPER
H M Coroner
R.H.B. STURT, M.A.(CANTAB)
34 & 36 CASTLE STREET
DOVER
KENT
CT16 1PN
H.M. CORONER FOR COUNTY OF KENT
(CANTERBURY & DOVER DISTRICT)
TELEPHONE 0304 240250
ALSO AT
68 CASTLE STREET
CANTERBURY
KENT
FAX 0304 240040
CT1 2QB
Our ref: RS/KB/CORONERSHIP
Your ref: SLP/LL
15th March, 1991
Dear Stefan,
Thank you very much for showing me your excellent analysis of the law. I have a few comments.
1.
I am not sure that it is not too complicated for the Jury, especially if it forms part of a long
summing-up. This may be a bit too detailed and intellectual for them and I would be inclined not
to cite individual cases.
2.
On page 16, you say that gross negligence is not enough for manslaughter. I think this is a rather
risky thing to say, as it implies there is a distinction between gross negligence and recklessness.
3.
I think there should be somewhere in the direction, a statement to the effect that the Jury must
accept the directions on the law which you give them, whether they agree with them or not, but
that they are free to form their own view as to the facts, whether they agree with your view or not.
4.
I think somewhere on page 8 you should say that mere carelessness is not enough.
5.
I think, again on page 8, the words "has actually caused" are possibly ambiguous.
substantial cause" might be better.
"Was a
I presume that in your summing-up you will apply the guide-lines, including your excellent
discussion on the importance of the emergency and the allowances that you make, to each of the putative
defendants in turn.
I shall be thinking of you next week and I hope it all goes well.
Yours sincerely,
f ■P
R.H.B. Sturt
H.M. Coroner for Kent
Canterbury & Dover District
S.L. Popper, Esq., LL.B., B.MED.Sci., B.M., B.S., M.R.C.G.P.,
H.M. Coroner for South Yorkshire
(West District),
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD, S3 7ET
13 March
Our Ref:
91
SLP/LL
Mr 3 H B S t u r t MA (CANTAB)
H M Coroner f o r County o f Kent
34 & 36 C a s t l e S t r e e t
DOVER
Kent
CT16 1PN
Dear Richard
As d i s c u s s e d , I e n c l o se a photocopy of my d r a f t d i r e c t i o n s on law.
P le ase f o r g i v e t h e i r poor s t y l e but t h e r e i s n ' t r e a l l y much time
t o do p o l i s h i n g . I am w a it in g f o r Michael Powers t o see whether
he has any advice but I would value any comment or sugg estio n
which you i d g n t c ar e t o make. I am s o r r y about t h e i r l e n g t h .
I am happy to say t h a t I had pre pared my f i r s t d r a f t b e fo re I
heard fro.v? fir Howells and saw the d r a f t d i r e c t i o n of Mr B i r t .
I f you have any comments p le a s e l e t me have them as soon as
p o s s i b l e as I t h i n k I w i l l be s t a r t i n g my summing up probably in
the middle of next week.
Yours s i n c e r e l y
S L POPPER
H M Coroner
Our Ref:
SLP/LL
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
His Honour Judge A Simpson
c /o S h e f f i e l d Crown Court
4th Floor
Sol grave House
Bank S t r e e t
SHEFFIELD
SI 1QN
Dear Judge Simpson
J u s t a s h o r t note t o thank you f o r your kindness in coming t o see
me and giv in g me your help with som o f t h e procedural,(problems
a r i s i n g out of long c ase s where j u r i e s might well need more than
a day t o reach t h e i r c o n c l u s io n s .
I am s ure you w i l l be p le a se d t o hear t h a t t h e Crown Court
A d m in is tr a to r has indeed been most h e lp f u l and w i l l a s s i s t us
with ho te l arrangements as well as p ro v id i n g us with J ur y O f f i c e r s .
I hope t h a t perhaps some time in t h e
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r us t o meet. I f when
and you have tim e, perhaps you could
with me and we might be a b le t o meet
Yours s i n c e r e l y
S L POPPER
H M Coroner
f u t u r e t h e r e may be ano the r
you a r e next i n S h e f f i e l d
g e t your Clerk t o g e t i n touch
f o r lunch.
'f t A ,
POINTS FOR DISCUSSION
SUMMING UP AND JURY
1.
2.
Timing f o r summing up.
Timing f o r sending Jur y o ut .
3.
Any problems with meal's, f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t i o n ' , e t c .
4.
Accommodation ( o v e r n i g h t ) :
.
.
.
.
5.
Su pe rvi si on :
.
,
.
.
.
6.
Location.
Presence of J ur y o f f i c e r s .
Degree of s e c l u s i o n .
Continuing c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i s s u e .
Number of Jury o f f i c e r s r e q u i r e d .
Query a v a i l a b i l i t y from Crown Court.
Any o t h e r so u rc e s .
Training.
Use of P o l i c e O f f i c e r s .
Summing up in general terms:
. Format.
. I n t e r u p t i o n s by counsel
a)
b)
c)
d)
on
on
on
on
law,
facts,
inference,
conclusions.
. Address with summary.
7.
Use of t r a n s c r i p t s .
8.
Use of e x h i b i t s .
9.
I n t e r r u p t i o n s from body of c o u r t - proc edure.
11 March
Our Ref:
91
SLP/Ll
Mr P Routh
Crown Court Administrator
Crown Court
SHEFFIELD
SI
Dear Mr Routh
I understand from Mr Jones th a t you have very kindly agreed to a s s i s t
me in two r e s p e c ts:
1.
With th e booking and appropriate arrangements fo r hotel
accommodation fo r th e Jury and Jury O ffic e r s a f t e r the Jury
have r e t i r e d , as I a n t ic ip a te they are l i k e l y to take more
than a day to reach a c o n clu sio n .
In order to avoid any p o s s ib le misunderstanding, th e c o s t o f
the accommodation w ill o f course be met by S h e f f ie ld City
Council as part and parcel o f th e Coronal expenses a sso c ia te d
with th e in q u e sts.
I r e a l i s e th a t you would l i k e as much n o tic e as p o s s ib le and i t
i s my present hope th a t we w i l l be able to send th e Jury out
on 25th March. I am p a r tic u la r ly anxious to tr y and conclude
the inquest before the end o f t h i s month fo r a l l kinds o f reasons.
Mr Jones or one o f h is s t a f f w i l l be in touch with you nearer
th e time to tr y and sharpen up th e tim ing.
2.
I am a ls o more than g r a te fu l to you agreeing to l e t us have some
o f your Jury O ffic e r s as I am very anxious th a t once the Jury
have r e t ir e d th e people who look a ft e r them should know what
they are doing. I f th in g s go according to plan, I w ill require
them on 25th March.
Obviously, any c o s t s or expenses a s so c ia te d with involvement
with t h i s Jury w ill not f a l l to your account but w i l l be met
1n th e same way as th e hotel accommodation, and no doubt you w i l l
r a is e an appropriate in v o ic e fo r t h i s in due course.
May I say again how very g r a te fu l I am to you fo r your h e lp , which has
removed a con sid era b le an xiety from my should ers.
YOurs s in c e r e ly
S L POPPER
H M Coroner
CC'
H. \o
HILLSBOROUGH IN QUI RY T EAM
J MERVYN JONES M Sc
DEPUTY CHIEF CONSTABLE
NECHELLS GREEN POLICE STATION
Fowler Street
Birmingham B7 5DA
CORONER'S OFFICER
Furnival House
Furnival Gate
Eyre Street
Sheffield S1 4QN
Telephone: 0742-731546
Fax
: 0742-731483
CHESHIRE CONSTABULARY
Police Headquarters
Chester CH1 2PP
Telephone: 0244-350000 Ext 2091
Fax
: 0244
•
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
JM J I FR
Date.
7th March, 1991
Dr S L POPPER,
H.M. C or on e r,
Town H a l l ,
Sheffield.
JTJRY BAILIFFS
Herewith my policy notes on this subject.
Please will you write to Mr ROUTH and formalise the position regarding
availability and fi nance.
I
PLEASE REPLY TO THE OFFICE AT
S h e ffie ld
POLICY NOTE
THURSDAY 7TH MARCH 1991
1150 HOURS
Telephone discussion with Mr Geoff BINGHAM (Crown Courts Circuit
Administrator), based in Sheffield (Tel 0742-755866). I discussed with Mr
BINGHAM the issue of Jury Officers. He said he was most willing to assist
subject, of course, to the availability of staff and finance. He referred me
to Mr Peter ROUTH the Administrator for the Sheffield Crown Courts on
0742-701224, for Jury Officers and suitable hotels for overnight
accommodation. He also said the matter would need to be formalised by the
Coroner in writing direct with Mr Peter ROUTH and copied to Mr BINGHAM.
As matter of important information, the Crown Courts will be closed for
criminal business between Wednesday 27th March, and Monday 8th April 1991. If
the Coroner were to send the Jury out on the Tuesday after Easter (ie Tuesday
2nd April, 1991) there should be no difficulty supplying Jury Officers. Other
times could be more difficult.
NB. If the above plan fails I have a contingency plan to allow three Cheshire
Officers with no previous involvement with South Yorkshire Police, the
investigation or the Inquests to fulfil this duty.
POLICY NOTE
THURSDAY 7TH MARCH. 1991
1210 HOURS
Telephone discussion with Mr Peter ROUTH, Crown Courts Administrator, Sheffield
(Telephone: 701224).
Mr Peter ROUTH will assist the Coroner with the provision of the Jury bailiffs
and will also book a suitable hotel for the Jury. However, he will need as
much notice as possible to provide the Jury bailiffs and one clear working day
for the booking of the hotel.
Mr ROUTH suggests that the Coroner writes to formalise this arrangement and
also to agree the costs to be met by the Coroner’s funding agency. It is
unclear whether they will charge for the bailiffs but this will need to be
covered if they do.
He also suggests that I keep Mr ROUTH up-to-date with progress.
the ease of assistance for the week of Tuesday 2nd April, 1991.
He re-affirmed
FRIDAY, 8th MARCH 1991
On Thursday, 7th March a t about 8.10 pm. I went t o th e Sing 0 a r Chinese
R es ta u ra nt i n te n d in g t o have a meal on my own. Having s a t down I n o ti c e d
a group which in cl ude d somet&f whom I thou gh t I re c og ni se d as a local
s o l i c i t o r , a t another t a b l e .
Having o rd e re d , t h e gentleman stood up and came over t o me, he ob vious ly
having r e c og n is e d me, he en quired whether I was on my own and i f I wished
t o j o i n them. I did so and d i s co v e re d t h a t he v^s ^ c o m p a n y with his
w if e , h i s p a r t n e r and an accountant£and h is wife^ 7wfc$ewas t h e Chief
Executive of th e fi r m . I changed my or d e r and ordere d th e same meal
as they were having.
The s o l i c i t o r was Mr Gregory and a f t e r a p e ri o d of time I r e c o l l e c t e d
t h a t he was a s s o c i a t e d with t h e f ir m of Keeble Hawson who, of co u rs e,
are i n s t r u c t i n g Mr Maxwell on b e h a l f of t h e City Council. By t h e time
I had tho ug ht of t h i s we were a lr e a d y e a t i n g and I f e l t t h a t i t would
be i n a p p r o p r i a t e a t t h a t s ta g e t o withdraw from t h e t a b l e .
Most of t h e evening was spent in d i s c u s s i n g th e usual t h i n g s - c h i l d r e n ,
th e Gulf, s o l i c i t o r s ' f e e s e t c . Hil lsborough was mentioned, in general
te rms, but nothing whatever was s a i d with r e g a rd t o t h e i s s u e s or p o s s i b l e
v e r d i c t , or anything which I c o n si de re d are or were p r e j u d i c i a l or
improper. The p r i n c i p l e p o i n t s which were mentioned w er e: 1.
We made some comment about th e q u a l i t y of th e b a r r i s t e r s but
n e ed l es s t o say I did not i n d i c a t e who I thought was b e s t but
i t was a t t h a t s ta g e I began t o r e a l i s e t h a t he knew something
about t h e m a tt e r because he made some comment t h a t he hoped
t h a t he was employing th e b e s t b a r r i s t e r .
I mentioned t h a t i t
was i n t e r e s t i n g t o see th e d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t i e s and in p a r t i c u l a r
how good one of them was in i d e n t i f y i n g w it n e s s e s from photos.
2.
They sympathised with me, I d e s c r ib e d what was happening as a
nightmare.
3.
I commented t h a t we had been s i t t i n g f o r a long time with th e
Jury and some s u r p r i s e was e xp re sse d t h a t i t was s t i l l th e
same one. The q u e s ti o n was asked as t o t h e i r s e l e c t i o n and
I e xp la in ed t h a t i t had been e n t i r e l y random except t h a t we
had excluded people who knew the y would not be able t o make
a commitment and I had arranged f o r a s u r p lu s of j u r o r s t o be
p r e s e n t on th e opening day so t h a t i f anyone was d i s q u a l i f i e d
we would be a ble t o s e l e c t someone e l s e .
I e xp la in ed t h a t we
had de vis ed a type of l o t t e r y in or d er t o t r y t o s e l e c t out of
t h e p o t e n t i a l body of j u r o r s an e n t i r e l y random s e c t i o n and
t h a t t h a t in f a c t had been achi eve d, but I was very f o r t u n a t e
in t h e q u a l i t y of th e Jury and we had only l o s t about iH days’, J
one f o r a fu n e ra l and t h e o t h e r two f o r i l l n e s s e s of c h i l d r e n .
/continued.
if l
FILE NOTE (continued
2)
FRIDAY, 8th MARCH 1991
4.
The only o t h e r comment of any moment was t h a t th e acc ountant
mentioned t h a t hi s daughter i s very good f r i e n d s with Mr
D u c k e n f i e ld ' s daughter and a comment was made t h a t he t h e r e f o r e
knew of th e Press a t t e n t i o n which he had had, although on th e
o th e r hand he a ls o knew of a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of s u p p o rt .
I i n d i c a t e d t h a t I did not want t o c o n tin ue t a l k i n g about t h a t .
Had
r e a l i s e d Mr G regory's r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e in q u e s t when f i r s t
i n v i t e d , i t i s q u i t e l i k e l y t h a t I would have d e c l in e d but u n f o r t u n a t e l y
I had f o r g o t t e n h is involvement.
The c o s t of th e meal was about double what I would have expected t o
pay but I paid i t myself.
S L TOPPER
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR STURT
MONDAY, 4th MARCH 1991, at 5.3 0 pm.
I d i s c u s s e d with him what he thought about simply re ad ing p a r t of
Mr Wh ite 's s t a t e m e n t , le a vi ng out t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l b i t .
thought t h i s was an a c c e p ta b le way
He
analagj&ts- ^sfeta& ge'of
s ta t em e n t in crimi na l p ro ce ed in g s.
He took t h e view t h a t i f I f e l t t h a t any Jury p r o p e rl y d i r e c t e d
could^reach a v e r d i c t of Unlawfully K il le d in r e s p e c t of any
p a r t i c u l a r person then I ought t o withdraw t h a t v e r d i c t from
th e Jury in r e s p e c t of him, even i f I l e f t i t a v a i l a b l e in
r e s p e c t of o t h e r s .
He was s u r p r i s e d t h a t counsel took a c o n t r a r y view.
he would be i n t e r e s t e d t o see t h e d r a f t
He s a i d t h a t
d i r e c t i o n on law and
he a l s o very generously o f f e r e d t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r d i s c u s s i o n
and indeed t o come up t o S h e f f i e l d i f I f e l t I needed hi s su p p o rt .
S L
SHEFFIELD REGISTRATION DISTRICT
M IC H A E L RIGBY
SU PERINTENDENT REGISTRAR
OFFICE HOURS:
MONDAY TO FRIDAY
Register Office
S u rrey Place
S h effield S1
1YA
9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
MR/MA
Telephone No. 7 3 5 3 . .fr.9.
Mr Rigby
27 February 1991
Mrs J Taylor
Secretary to
Dr S L Popper
H M Coroner
Medico Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
Dear Mrs Taylor
Re: Hillsborough
Thank you for your letter and enclosures dated 22 February 1991 which
will be of great assistance to ray office when dealing with the registration
of deaths relating to the above.
I do appreciate the trouble you have taken to give me the relevant information
which will ease the difficulties to the Registrars post registration.
I will bear in mind the change of solicitors of the relatives
C Church when Dr Popper's Inquest Certificates are received.
Thank you once again.
Yours sincerely
Superintendent R ^ i s t V a r
of Gary
i
*
22nd February
91
JS .
MR/MA.
•
Mr. M. Rigby,
Superintendent Registrar,
Sheffield Registration District,
Register Office,
Surrey Place,
Sheffield. SI 1YA.
Dear Mr.
Rigby,
Re: Hillsborough.
I enclose herewith the list of names and addresses of the deceased and also
of their solicitors as discussed with you on the telephone.
I have iust heard from Dr. Popper that the relatives of Gary C. Church
have changed their solicitor.
I do not as yet have this information to hand
but will let you have it as soon as it is in my possession.
If you need any more details please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Joan Taylor,
BAFAAD
Secretary to H.M.Coroner.
Name and address
of deceased.
Name and address
of Solicitor.
Solicitor’s
Reference.
Thomas Anthony Howard,
David Phillips,
Harris & Whalley,
268 Stanley Road,
New Strand, Bootle,
Merseyside. L20 3 E R .
IRH/LM/HOWARD.
Inger Shah,
Mr. P.L. Goodenough,
Official Receiver to
Supreme Court,
Penderel House, 287
High Holborn, London
WC1V 7 H P .
LIT1/C5/L7.
Gary Harrison.
E. Rex Makin,
Whitechapel,
Liverpool. LI 1HQ.
TS/GJM.
David George Rimmer,
Brighouse, Jones & Co.,
28 Derby Street,
Ormskirk, Lancs.
L39 2BY.
SM/SMW.
William H. Lill & C o . ,
9 The Cross, Lymm,
Cheshire. WA13 OHY.
CRF/JJ.
Silverman Livermore,
11/13 Victoria Street,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB/WHELAN.
James Robert He nnesey.
Linskills,
Harrington House,
Harrington Street,
Liverpool. L2 9QA.
GT/MJ/Civil.
David Hawley,
E. Rex Makin,
Whitechapel,
Liverpool. LI 1 H Q .
TS/GJM.
]
Colin Mark Ashcroft.
Ian
D a v i H UTial an
BAFAAA
James Gary Asm'na 11
Alexander Harris & Co.,
Ashfield House, 54 Hyton,
L iverpool.
DNHDC.
David Steven Brown.
Gorna & C o .,
Virginia House, Cheapside,
King Street,
Manchester. M2 4 N B .
A TP / J L /
Brown.
Peter Andrew Harn'gun
Mackrell & Thomas,
144 Liverpool Road,
Page Moss, Liverpool.
ST/LC.
Roy Harry Hamilton.
Kennan Gribble & Bell,
40 Crosby Road North,
Waterloo,
Liverpool. L22 4QQ.
CB/CP/
H112A.
Colin Wafer,
Liverpool.
L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Gary Christopher Church
11/13 Victo ria Street,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DF/LS/
C hu r c h .
Carl William Rimmer.
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB
R i m me r.
Knight & Sons,
31 Ironmarket,
Newcastle-underLyme , Staffordshire,
ST5 1 R L .
JGT/SKB.
Paul Brian Murray
BAFAAA
3
Christopher Barry
Devonside,
David Philipps,
Harris & Whalley,
268 Stanley Road,
New Strand,
Bootle, Merseyside L20 3ER.
Paula Ann Smith,
Caplan Goodman & Coote,
107 Townsend Avenue,
Liverpool. LE11 8ND.
CPC Mr
Caplan
Tracey Elizabeth Cox
Quinney & Harris,
117 High Street,
Wooton Bassett,
Swindon, Wiltshire,
SN4 7AU.
RH/KH.
Marion Hazel M c C a b e ,
Michael Thomas & Co.,
10/12 Southernhay,
Basildon, Essex.
MN/ SS.
Vincent Michael
Fitzs immons.
Christopher Thomas & C o .,
4 Bank Buildings,
Charring Cross,
Birkenhead,Wirral L41 6EJ.
(acting for the family)
ACS/JB
Rigby & C o .,
406 High Street, Winsford,
Cheshire. CW7 7DU.
(acting for former spouse)
CMG/MSF/
F194.
W hi tt le s,
Pearl Assurance House,
23 Princess Street, Albert
Square, Manchester. M2 4ER.
(acting for common law wife).
MH/TL/
F39 99 .
Dooley & Co . ,
P.O. Box 5,
122 Cherryfield Drive,
Kirkby, Merseyside. L32 8AA.
TM/CO
4815
Brian Christopher
M a tthews,__________
BAFAAA
IRH/LM/
D447.
4
Peter Andrew Burkett,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
(acting for w i d o w ) .
DRF/SB.
Bell Lamb & Joynson,
51/53 Wallasey Road,
Wallasey, L45 4NN.
(acting for parents).
GLS/W699.
Henry Charles Rogers,
Walker Smith & Way,
102 Whitby Road,
Ellesmore Port. L65 OAG.
JFI/B.
Joseph Clark,
Mace & Jones,
30 Sherbourne Square,
Huyton, MerseysideL36 9UR.
SDM/JS/
H 2 5 2 8 1 .001/
Gilchrist.
Francis Joseph McAllister,
Richmond House, Rumford
Place, Liverpool.L3 9SW.
MH/McAlli
ster. Y89V
291.
Joseph Daniel McCarthy,
Charles Russell Williams &
J am e s ,
Hale Court, Lincolns Inn,
London.WC2A 3UL.
JEKF/PJR/
TW 1136/1.
Steven Joseph Robinson,
Coyne Learmonth,
135 Liverpool Road,
Great Crosby, Liverpool.
A CL /LMJ/HI.
Eric Hankin,
Lees, Lloyds & Whitley,
Castle Chambers, Castle
Street, Liverpool.
Alan Johnston,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
BAFAAA
F JR /NRF.
DRF/SB.
5
Henry Thomas Burke,
Canter Levin & Berg,
PO Box 21, 18 Newtown
Gardens, Kirkby L32 8RR.
KP/CB.
Keith McGrath,
Edwards Frais Ronald,
Refuge Assurance House,
Derby Square,
Liverpool. L2 1T2.
MR/KT.
James Philip Delaney,
D.P. Roberts Hughes & Denye,
55 Allport Lane,
Bromborough L62 7HH.
GER/LMC.
Jonathon Owens,
J. Frodsham & Sons
13/15 Alverton Street,
Prescot, Merseyside L34 5QW.
DP/STC.
(
Christine Anne Jones,
JK/WR.
Joseph A. Jones & Co.,
Barclays Bank Chambers,
New Street, Lancaster, LAI 1EH.
Kevin Tyrrell,
David Matthews & Co.,
65/67 Dale Street,
Liverpool. L2 2HJ.
DM/SAP.
Ian Thomas Glover,
46/48 Stanley Street,
Liverpool. LI 6AL.
LF/KB.
Christopher Edwards,
Walker Smith & Way,
102 Whitby Road,
Ellesmere Port. L65 OAG.
JFI/B.
Peter Francis Toot l e,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
D R F/ L D .
6
Peter McDonnell,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/LD.
Eric George Hughes,
Crombie Collins,
Elwyn House,
9 Market Place, Uppingham,
Leicestershire. LE15 9QH.
JRC/WP.
Paul Anthony Hewitson,
Coyne Learmonth,
135 Liverpool Road,
Great Crosby, Liverpool
L23 5 T E .
ACL/LMH/
HI
Graham John Wright,
Alexander Harris & Co.,
54 Ashfield Road,
Sale, Cheshire. M33 IDT.
DNH.DC.
Carl Darren Hewitt,
Rich & Carr,
P.O. Box 15,
Assurance House,
24 Rutland Street,
Leicestershire. LEI 9GX.
DMR/SKB.
Nicholas Peter Joynes,
Davies, Wallis, Foyster,
5 Castle Street,
Liverpool. L2 4XE.
(acting for w i d o w ) .
PAB/CC.
Lees Lloyd Whitely,
Castle Chambers,
Castle Street,
Liverpool. L2 9TJ.
(acting for parents).
FJR/NRF.
Carl Brown,
BAFAAA
AL/SB.
W iddows,
P.O. Box 1, 2nd Floor,
South Wing, Turnpike House,
Market Street, Leigh, WN7 1 D Z .
7
David William Birtles,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Gary Collins,
Woolwich Lander & Savage,
256a Stanley Road,
Bootle, Liverpool L20 3ER.
ADS/COL.
Patrick John Thompson,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Andrew Mark Brookes,
Shakespeares,
10 Bennetts Hill,
Birmingham. B2 5 R S ,
MJAH/LHS.
Kevin Daniel Williams,
Goffey & C o .,
Turret House,
3 Chapel Lane,
Formby, Merseyside.
RBF/AF/W.
L3 7 4 D L .
Simon Bell,
Wall & C o . ,
98 Bridge Road,
Litherland,
Liverpool. L216PH.
MC/MJC/A6168
Stuart Paul William
Thompson,____________
Paul Watson & Co.,
lc Preston New Road,
Churchtown, Southport
PR9 8 P B .
BPW/WB .
Anthony Peter Kelly,
Richard Dawson & Co.,
Lauren Court,
Wharf Road,
Sale, Cheshire. M33 2 A F .
(acting for w i f e ) .
RD/CB/K001.
BAFAAA
DRF/SB.
Liverpool. L2 5QQ (acting for mother).
-
8
-
Nicholas Hewitt,
Rich & Carr,
P.O. Box 15,
Assurance House,
24 Rutland Street,
Leicester LEI 9GX.
DMR/SKB.
David William Mather,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/LM/H.
Martin Kevin Traynor,
Dooley & C o .,
P.O.Box No.5,
Kirk b y ,
Merseyside. L32 8AA.
TM/CB/4786
Paul Clark,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Gordon Rodney Horn,
Liverpool. L25QQ.
(acting for sister).
DRF/SB.
E. Rex Makin & Co.,
Whitechapel,
Liverpool.LI 1HQ.
(acting for mother).
TS/GJM.
Christopher James Traynor
Dooley & C o .,
P.O. Box 5,
Kirkby, Merseyside. L32 8AA.
TM/GB4912
Colin Andrew Hugh
William Sefton,
2nd Floor,
Whelmar House,
South Way,
Skelmersdale WN8 6NU.
NMF/MM/SK
9246/01.
BAFAAA
9
Barry Glover,
Dooley & Co.,
146 Queens Drive,
Liverpool. L13 OAL.
Richard Jones,
Richmond House,
Rumford Place,
Liverpool. L3 . 9SW.
Sarah Louise Hicks,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
William Roy Pemberton,
---------------------------- 11/13 Victoria Street,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
Thomas Steven Fox,
-----------------------------
Christopher Thomas & C o .,
4 Bank Buildings,
Charing Cross,
Birkenhead, Wirral,
L41 6 E J .
Raymond Thomas Chapman,
Richmond House,
Rumford Place,
Liverpool. L3 9SW.
John McBrien,
Mrs. J. McBrien,
The Old Vicarage,
Well Street,
Holywell,
Clwyd. CH8 9PL.
(representing self)
Gerard Bernard Patrick
Napthans,
Baron,
I 5 Winckley Squre,
------------------------- Preston
Lancashire. PRl 3 D T .
TM/CB/4785.
MH/JONES/
Y 8 9V 261.
DRF/SB.
DRF/SB.
ACS/JB/Fox-
MH/CHAPMAN/
A89V228.
NPK/PE.
Alan McGlone,
P.O. Box 21,
18 Newtown Gardens,
Kirkby, L32 8RR.
KP/CB.
Stephen Paul Co poc,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Michael David Kelly,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Paul William Carlile,
David philips Harris
& Whalley,
268 Stanley Road,
New Strand,
Bootle, Merseyside L20 3ER.
IRH/LM.
Kester Roger Marcus Ball,
Tilley Underwood,
7 Chequer Street,
St. Albans,
H e r t s . AL1 3 Y J .
Derrick George Godwin,
Leighton Davis,
Buttercross House,
14 Langdale Gate,
Witney,
O x o n . 0X8 6 E Y .
CALD/MER.
John Alfred Anderson,
Mace & Jones,
30 Sherbourne Square,
Huyton,
Merseyside L36 9UR.
SDM/JS.
BAFAAA
DFT/HM.
11
Martin Kenneth Wild,
Bishop & C o .,
45 Market Street,
New Mills,
Stockport SK12 4AA.
AJH/SM.
Peter Reuben Thompson,
Cuff Roberts North Kirk,
25 Castle Street,
Liverpool. L2 4TD.
DC/IC.
Graham John Roberts,
Percy Hughes & Roberts,
29 East Gate North,
Chester. CHI 1LQ.
G C I HDCI
R30 .
David John Benson
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/LD.
Thomas Howard
David Philips Harris &
Whalley,
268 Stanley Road,
New Strand,
Bootle. L20 3ER.
(representing ex-wife)
IRH/LM.
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
(representing parents)
DRF/SB.
Philip John Steele,
Coyne Learmonth,
135 Liverpool Road,
Great Crosby,
Liverpool. L23 5 T E .
ACL/REB/ST.
Jon Paul Gilhooley,
Liverpool L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Paul David Brady.
Yaffe, Jackson Ostrin,
Princess Building,
81 Dale Street,
Liverpool. L2 2 H Z .
4/B.
0327/RJJ/
AH.
12
Carl David Lewis,
Dooley & C o .,
P.O. Box 5,
Kirkby, Merseyside.
L32 8AA.
TM/SC/4767.
Gary Philip Jones,
Morecroft Dawson &
Garnetts,
Queen Building,
8 Dale Street,
Liverpool. L2 4TQ.
RHD/AAG.
Stephen Francis O ’Neill,
E. Rex Makin,
Whitechapel,
Liverpool. LI 1HQ.
TSGJM.
Barry Sidney Bennett,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Victoria Jane Hicks.
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
David Leonard Thomas,
Layton & Co . ,
Oriel Chambers,
14 Water Street,
Liverpool. L2 8TD.
CS/DRW.
Stephen Francis Harrison,
Edwards Abrahams Doherty,
125/127, Picton Road,
Liverpool. L15 4HG.
(representing m o t h e r ) .
AD/JW.
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
(representing family).
BAFAAA
DRF/SB.
Arthur Horrocks,
Fanshaw Porter & Hazlehurst,
11 & 61 Hamilton Square,
Birkenhead, Merseyside,
L41 6A X .
NLJ/KLH.
Philip Hammond,
Bartlett & Son,
Marldon Chambers,
30 North John Street,
Liverpool. L2 9QN.
DPH/CAH I
2783.
Adam Edward Spearritt,
Liverpool. L2 5QQ.
DRF/SB.
Lee Nicol,
Wall & C o .,
34 Crosby Road North,
Waterloo,
Liverpool. L22 4 Q G .
JSB/SEH I
A6296.
BAFAAA
04/02 '91
08v46
FAX 0742 726247
MEDICO LGL CNTER
/
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRY TRANSMISSION AGAIN
ERROR PAGE
##104
TRANSACTION #
0825
TTI
FORENSIC PATH
CONNECTION TEL
736900
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
/}
G3
02/04 08:45
USAGE TIME
00'48
PAGES
1
1001
M I C H A E L RI GBY
S U PERINTENDENT REGISTRAR
OFFICE HOURS:
MONDAY TO FRIDAY
Regi ster Office
Surrey Pl ace
Shef f i el d S1 1Y A
9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
four Ref:
Your
Our Ref:
SLP/LL
MR/MA
31 January
1991
Telephone No. 7 3 5 3 . 2 0 .
Mr...Rigby.......
Dr S L Popper
HM Coroner
Medico Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
Dear Dr Popper
Thank you for your letter dated 25 January 1991- I have informed the
Registrars of Births and Deaths and the Registrar General of the change in
plans. We now expect the Inquest Certificates to be forwarded direct to
this office.
There are no facilities at this office or at the Register Office in Liverpool
enabling us to check that addresses of people named on your orders for burial/
cremation are the same now as in April 1989 -
If you have the names and addresses of any solicitors who were dealing on
behalf of the relatives of the deceased I would ensure that not only would
the Registrars write to the person named on the burial/cremation order but
also to the solicitor (if any) concerned with that particular death informing
him of the registration of the death.
Thanking you for any assistance you can give in this direction and also for
your co-operation in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Superintendenlf'^Rel^'strar
R.tf.B. STURT, M.A.(CANTAB)
34 & 36 CASTLE STREET
DOVER
KENT
CT16 1PN
H.M. CORONER FOR COUNTY OF KENT
(CANTERBURY & DOVER DISTRICT)
TELEPHONE 0304 240250
ALSO AT
FAX 0304 240040
68 CASTLE STREET
CANTERBURY
KENT
CT1 2QB
Our ref:
RS/KB/CORONERSHIP
Your r e f : SLP/LL
26th February,
1991
Dear Stefan,
This is just to let you know that somebody involved in
your Inquest rang up this office a week or so ago and asked
what I had done about warning witnesses that they might
incriminate themselves. I did not speak to this person, but I
got Johnnie to send him the transcripts of what I had said on
the subject at my Inquest.
I just thought that you should
know.
Yours sincerely,
R.H.B. Sturt
H.M. Coroner for Kent
Canterbury & Dover District
S.L. Popper, Esq., LL.B., B.MED.Sci., B.M., B.S., M.R.C.G.P.,
H.M. Coroner for South Yorkshire
(West District),
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD,
S3 7ET
T mrn
OVQ-^M:
frWta.
i? tN'teovjcc
ii ia l f e it e S if c lS
^ R c O V S"»
FAX 0742 726247
MEDICO LGL CNTER
ACTIVITY REPORT
TRANSMISSION OR
TRANSACTION =
0850
CONNECTION TEL
736900
G3
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
02/19 09:18
USAGE TIME
00 49
PAGES
1
LIVERPOOL
Hillsborough Working Party,
Chief Executives Office,
Room 5,
Municipal Buildings ,
Dale Street,
L IV E R P O O L
L69 2D H
Telephone: 0 5 1 - 225 2334/3
Fax: 236 2047
D X 14206 L IV E R P O O L
Y o u r ref
O u r ref
Date
14th February 1991.
Dr. S. L. Popper,
Coroner,
South Yorkshire (West) District,
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD
S3 7 E T .
Dear Dr. Popper,
This Hillsborough Working Party wishes to express its concern and dismay
at your refusal to place the Football Supporter's Association's written
submission, of December 3rd 1990, before the Hillsborough jury as they
so requested.
That submission or 'letter' presented by the FSA remains in our view,
a credible, considered and broadly based synthesis of legitimate
evidence.
That football supporters in attendance at Hillsborough remain legally
unrepresented at the Inquests is, of course, something you have no
influence over.
But as fans giving evidence continue to appear in
isolation the one organisation that can best reflect their experiences,
concerns and interests has, effectively, been denied an input by
virtue of your decision on the FSAs submission.
•
As a written
the FSA your
Accordingly,
decision and
submission is the only means of representing the views of
position on this matter is both perplexing and disturbing.
on behalf of the Working Party, I express unease at your
the lack of any noteworthy explanation in your reply to
the FSA.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr. H. Chase,
Chair H.W.P.
When calling or telephoning please ask fo r
7 February
91
MEMORANDUM
to :
mr m m
CC:
HAMMOND SUDDARDS
With r e fer e n c e t o your not® t o West Midlands P o l i c e , Or Nicholson 1s
not going t o tie addressing th e I ssu e o f l a t e a r r iv a ls or alcohol
c o n te n t, as t h i s 1s not w ith in h i s f i e l d .
You w i l l , o f c o u r se , be aware fr o a th e cowwents made 1n court on
6 February, what thoughts I have regarding s y sutaralng up and p o s s ib ly
a n a ly s is o f th e e x i s t i n g e v id en ce.
" S I POPPER
H M Coroner
L
^
f ^ Q s o
pistil___
/ q / ^
z^
7
~
' d
/Q X
^ c <£>4 o
C n w ^
></ /i a / ?
/%
£ & € -.
/
*j^L
~
^ & y r i u ( X / r
Q
X
/ tg
*
g.
^
o
r~ ^T
^
/ <Lc J ) ^
XI
C i ^ o ___
£Vn ^2/jj J*/nT
V~
jUo q * (
>
/
O^
j ^ ~ '^ f i ^ o
bi
______
~\
C s #" /
-f
A
^
f^ r- £> /^ h — ^
^
s~?f
r x
/%
/ l ^ g i r e
MEETING WITH DR NICHOLSON, MR GAINS, D
, M JONES, S L POPPER
4 .1 5 pm. on Wednesday 30 January 1991
Very long meeting t o d i s c u s s what p a r t of t h e HSE Report should be
used as well as t h e s u b j e c t t o be c over ed.
Decided t h a t we would
cover:1.
The c ounting of s u p p o r t e r s in through t u r n s t i l e s and g a t e ,
t o g e t h e r with some comments on t h r o u g h - p u t , p o s s i b l y
a l l o c a t i o n of t u r n s t i l e s and volume.
2.
Accounting o f s u p p o r t e r s on t e r r a c e , i n c l u d i n g l e an i n g crowd
model, anthrop ome tri c measurements o f c a p a c i t i e s , l in k e d
with and t o crowd movement and le ani ng model, and query
c o l l a p s e of b a r r i e r .
3.
The b a r r i e r c o l l a p s e .
We agreed t h a t t h i s evidence should be
as n ear t o l ay terms as p o s s i b l e .
(a)
There were two a s p e c t s :
t h e f o r c e needed t o break t h e b a r r i e r and I wanted them
t o deal with t h e i r work and then bring in by way of
comment, d i s s e n t i n g views.
(b)
t h e t e s t i n g which would i n c l u d e t h e i r u n d e r st an d in g of
t h e Green Guide, t h e i r u n de rs t andi ng of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n as per Eastwoods with p o s s i b l y some
comment on t h e wording.
(c)
t h e i r u nde rs t an di ng of t h e r i g t o g e t h e r with comments on
i t s use (nut) and o p e r a t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s .
SLP
31 J anuary 1991
SHEFFIELD R W ' K T R X n c m n i& T B IC v
!
-
%
" ■ ... .V-
,
YA
28/01 '.91
11:22
H 1WAYS & TRAFFIC
FAX 0742 736182
MEDICO LGL CNTER
FAX NO 0742 736182
TEL NO 0742 734
SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL
DESIGN AND BUILDING SERVICES
2 - 1 0 CARBROOK HALL ROAD
SHEFFIELD
S9 2DB
Fax TRANSMISSION
TO...\d-\l^/S.
£
‘
FAXNO..........................................................
-...................
..........
FROM.......................................
-........
TEL NO...........................3 ^ .^ ^ - * ! ? .......1........... - .... ....................................
date se n t .
-5 .'?..........................................................
W i t/^,/
TOTAL NO OF PAGESOnduding this cover sheet)
.....:..TS....................
MESSAGE:
37
Vo
f jj*
Ci f * * ?
.-Afo-
~uj
5* * ^
0 aA>Mr5»W«w)
^
X
^
uuw>^\
i AC-Ua*Q .
^
^
<=~
M'V'A.
Dc*
***-*7
Covert
C h ^S
•Miifoy,
W«
te **.
pXtJO
plô
C ^ 4 U m S » « «^ S .
VN
W rA
@001
28/01 '91
11:23
FAX 0742 736182
H'WAYS & TRAFFIC
ALCO HO L AND ROAD A C C ID E N T S
IN
MEDICO LGL CNTER
@002
S H E F F IE L D *
*
AN
i
IN -D E P T H
ft
R esearch
1989
FATAL
R eport
produced
in
O cto b e r
’ ALCO HO L
C o u n c il,
PROBLEM
any
IN
one
m a jo r
1 . I
o f
th e
ROAD A C C ID E N T S
<
R e fe re n c e
S h e f f ie ld ,
betw een
o c c u rre d
c o n tr ib u to r y
e s tim a te
m ore
a c c id e n ts
1 .£
in
d e a th s
T h at
AND
S H E F F IE L D
y e a r
a c c id e n t
(
ROAD A C C ID E N T S
See
was
was
R e fe re n c e s
th e
g ra n te d
D i s t r i c t
),
e x a m in e
k i l l e d
e x a m in a tio n
e s tim a te
was
quo ted
in
H.
road
c a r r ie d
in
25%
£
a
in
by
th e
S IZ E
and
50%
w h ic h
o f
C ity
OF
e s tim a te d
by
M.
l i t e r a t u r e
e s tim a te s
and
3
TH E
th a t
a l l
a lc o h o l
in
road
was
a
o f
C h ie f
C o ro n er
fo r
f i l e s
a c c id e n ts
o ut
p ara g rap h
to
in
g iv e
1 .0
a lc o h o l
th e
th e
t h e i r
o f
re v ie w
o f
some
and
ro ad
).
p u b lic a tio n
and
w ere
upon
p u b lis h e d
P o lic e
who
THE
),
a c c id e n ts
based
Y o rk s h ire
to
in
i
i
1990
fa c to r .
w id e ly
F o llo w in g
p e rm is s io n
^
OF T H E
BACKGROUND
1 -0
I
A N A L Y S IS
a
R esearch
C o n s ta b le
S outh
th e
S h e f f ie ld
in
above.
o f
Y o rk s h ire
re g a rd in g
b e t t e r
R e p o rt,
31
S outh
(
p e o p le
19S3.
p re c is io n
West
T h is
to
th e
28/01 '91
11:24
FAX 0742 736182
5_SU M M A R Y O F
i
• *
5* O
The
IN F O R M A T IO N FROM T H E P O L IC E
e x a m in a tio n
in fo rm a tio n
th a n
s o u rce s.
p a rt
a c c id e n t.
O f
been
th e
’ o v e r
re m a in in g
v e h ic le s
5 « i
d riv e n
in v o lv e d
T e s t.
d ie s
In
),
d r iv e r s
a t
o f
6 -0
d e c id e
w i l l
s k u ll
),
as
A c c id e n t
) .
D eath
Home
is
th o s e
d eath
w e ll
th e
E v id e n c e
from
a p p o in te d
h o ld
o f
n ot
to
have
w h ile
th e
t r a v e ll i n g
in
p ro v id e
h it s
w ere
a l l
d r iv e r
a
B re a th
P e d e s tria n
re q u ire d
to
each
o f
w ere
Post
w ith
th e
g iv e n
a
road
an
In q u e s t,
th e
d e a th ,
Cause
E x te rn a l
lo c a l
th e
a
who
g iv e
o f
a
w h ich
n o n -in ju re d
b re a th
t e s t.
O F HM CORONER
w ith
th e
w o u ld
n o n —i n j u r e d
a c c id e n ts ,
a s s o c ia te d
th e
a
V e h ic le
a c c id e n ts
In t e r n a l
as
who
in
on
d r iv e r s .
in v o lv e d
c irc u m s ta n c e s
both
a lc o h o l
o c c u rre d ,
re q u ire d
v e h ic le s ,
d r iv e r
in v o lv e d
p assen g ers
th re e
e v e n tu a lly
ta k e n
O f fic e
tw o
in
a
th e
upon
d r iv e r s
m ore
to
excess
r i d e r
a c c id e n t
w here
M o to r
OF TH E F IL E S
F o llo w in g
e s ta b lis h
<
to
a
not
@003
S T A T S I3
re s p e c t
one
was
g iv e n
norm al
d r iv e r
l i m i t ’
was
a n o th e r
le a s t
in v o lv e d
C o ro n er
ca se s
th e
In
E X A M IN A T IO N
n in e
a c c id e n t
th e
w ith
w ere
th e
has
v e h ic le
th e
’ o v e r
cases,
t e s t .
in v o lv e d
6
s ix
none
b re a th
by
th e
when
f a t a l i t i e s
w ere
in
d e a th s ,
l i m i t ’
f i l e s
a t t r ib u t e d
m o to r
MEDICO LGL CNTER
F IL E S
from
th a t
be
one
fo u r
th re e
T h e re
can
le a s t
th e
P o lic e
shown
d e a th s
at
th e
a v a ila b le
have
4
o f
o f
is
They
im p a irm e n t,
tn e
H'WAYS & TRAFFIC
o f
re s p e c t
M ortem
to
in
and
D eath
Cause
(
th e
R eport
p a th o lo g is ts .
a c c id e n t,
e .g .
(
o rd e r
to
e .g .
c a r r ie d
to
le g a lly
fr a c tu r e d
Road
In t e r n a l
th e
T r a f f i c
Cause
out
by
o f
th e
28/01 '91
11:24
FAX 0742 736182
6 -1
P a rt
th e
B lo o d
o f
t h is
H'WAYS & TRAFFIC
e x a m in a tio n
A lc o h o l
is
a
c l i n i c a l
C o n c e n tra tio n
@1004
MEDICO LGL CNTER
L e v e l.
e x a m in a tio n
T h is
is
o f
u s u a lly
*
c a r r ie d
out
a t
th e
c irc u m s ta n c e s
when
s e v e ra l
a f t e r
th e r e
days
may
t e s tin g
be
BAC
sa m p le
iif iL .
6. £
and
le v e l
o f
r a t e
BflC
e q u iv a le n t
d e c lin e
6 .3
th e
H ow ever,
body.
S h e f fie ld ,
th e
o f
in
Post
cases,
sam p le
th e
m ore
BAC
may
c a s u a lty
o c c u rre n c e
serum
a
th e
).
le v e l
r e l i a b l e
o f
th e
a c c id e n t,
so o ner
to
th e
tim e
be
d ie s
S o m etim e s,
ta k e n ,
tim e
in
a
is
about
th e
once
W ith
t h e
M ortem ,
th e
m a jo r ity
d ie d
£6
food
p erson
a
f o r
can
b lo o d
a ls o
be
in d ic a to r
o f
because
th e
th a t
and
th e
a c c id e n t
w ith in
per
fa c to r s
such
has
in ta k e ,
e tc .
>,
T h is
is
a c tu a l
r a t e
o f
w e ig h t,
sex,
p o te n tia l
fo r
d u e
t-o
d e c o m p o s itio n
o f
a c c id e n t f a t a l i t i e s
so
such
p ro b lem s
o f
hour.
t h e
in
k i l l e d
a
person,
is
ro ad
t o
once
t h e r e
l e v e l ,
h o u rs
BAC-
a v e ra g e
The
kept
1£
th e
d e c lin e ,
\
a
A d u lts
can
A lc o h o l.
d ie s ,
BflC
re s p e c t
b o d ie s
o f
v a rio u s
a
For
1 5 m g /l0 0 m l
U n it
liv e r ,
b lo o d ,
ceased.
about
One
upon
p e rs o n 5s
has
e s tim a tin g
D f
6 .4
eg,
th e
ta k e n
le v e l
depends
p ro b lem s
(
be
to
d e c lin e
to
e f f ic ie n c y
a lth o u g h th e r e
o fte n
c o n s u m p tio n
o f
done
m ortem ’
can
is
n ot
a c c id e n t’ s
th e s e
c lo s e
M ortem ,
o c c u rre d .
u l i t j j. Li ul i1wi-
a lc o h o lic
th e
i t
is
th e
In
b lo o d
The
t h is
’ a n te
re as o n s.
p u b lis h e d
th e
an
Post
r e f r ig e r a t e d
in
th e
a re
s t a t e
p r io r
in
to
overcom e.
S h e f f ie ld
a c c id e n t’ s
in
1989,
o c c u rre n c e
* Died w i t h i n i£ h o u r s .......... - • £2 f a t a l i t i e s
Die d w i t h i n 2 4 h o u r s . . . . . . . . . . . .
i f a t a l i t y
* Died w i t h i n 7 2 h o u r s ............
■=:f a t a l i t i e s
* D i e d m o r e thain 7 2 h o u r s ----3
fatal i t i e s
the
28/01 '91
’
11:25
6 .5
In
th e
££
FAX 0742 736182
t h is
a d u lts
o c c u rre n c e
a lc o h o l
’ a n te
th e
m artera’
been
BAC
w ith in
used
o f
r e s u its
th e
o f
12
a d u lt
hou rs
Bf l C-
e x a m in a tio n
o f
th e
th e
In
used.
3
d ie d
sam p le
s is s
a c c id e n t’ s
th e s e
w ith in £4
a re
£3
q iv e n
o f
cases,
a d d itio n ,
is
©005
fo r
c o n tr ib u tio n
o f
In
who
f i r.c i r g =
BAC
MEDICO LGL CNTER
th e
e v a lu a te
been
t o t a l
she
from
a c c id e n t.
has
fr-om t h e
Thus
to
th e
r e s u lt
r e s u lt
The
r e s u lts
d ie d
cause
in c lu d e d .
6 .6
th e
who
have
to
m ortem ’
a ls o
stu d y ,
H'WAYS & TRAFFIC
an
an
’ a n te
h o u rs
is
f a t a l i t i e s .
in
TABLE
4
b e i ow i
TABLE
4
ADULTS
K IL L ED
CLASS
BLOOD
IN
OF
ROA D
C O N C EN TR A TIO N
A C C ID E NTS
None
USER
ROAD
ALCOHOL
IN
Less
D e te c te d th a n
LEVELS
I
SHEFF IE L D
m g /iO O m ls
50
and
OF
1 9 6 9 . ______________
IN
B etw een
50
)
B etw een
75
SO a n d
M ore
160th a n
IS O
P.
C y c lis ts
:
c
o
M.
C y c lis ts
i
0
o
1
C ar
D r iv e r s
h
u
u
O
0
C ar
P assen g ers
7
c:
£
i
0
15
£
£
1
3
P e d e s tria n s
TOTAL.
6 .7
nad
The
a
a
do
BAC
50 m g /lO O m i
vs-
le v e l
s.
o ed escr i a n s .
Pol ic e
one
o f
in
h is
d r iv e r
c a o le
re c o rd s .
th e
c a r
in
I t
The
.s
i-'r-. r e a
p assen g ers
s u p p lie d
t --at
s c o i t i o r.
.In
£
o “
?
sa +e
■: f
t -~j e
n e
to
b
tre s E
,
>,no
b re a tn
a d u lts
cea vhs,
a re
s i x
had
t r a v e ll i n g
p o s itiv e
£3
’*
f a t a l it ;ss
i 11 e d
d ie d w h ile
a
chat
e .'';c £ i
nc t e c
ot n e r
b lo o d ,
who
s ^ q s t i
in
te s t.
a
te s te d
a t
le a s t
th re e
’ riiavc-inea *
f at a 1
no
0
w ere
in
th e
c a s u a lt ie s ,
a ico no i.
d e te c te d
c a r d riv e n
by
a
25 January
Our Ref:
91
SLP/lL
Mr M Rigby
Superintendent R egistrar
S h e f fie ld R e g istra tio n D i s t r i c t
R eg ister O ffic e
Surrey Place
SHEFFIELD
SI 1YA
Dear Mr Rigby
I r e fe r to our e a r l i e r correspondence in October 1990 regarding Rev 99s.
I have been r e f l e c t i n g on t h i s matter fu rth er and I think I w ill fo llo w
my normal procedure and send th e documentation to you rather than tr y in g
to make s p e c ia l arrangements.
The one th in g th a t concerns me a l i t t l e b i t i s th a t some o f th e people
who would be named on the Rev.99 as having receiv ed my order fo r b u r ia l/
cremation, may have moved s in c e April 1989. Is th ere anything you need
from us which would a s s i s t you or have you got a system to cope with
that?
Yours s in c e r e ly
S L POPPER
H M Coroner
26th Octo be r
90
SLP/JT.
MR/MT.
Mr. M. Rigby,
Sheffield Registration District,
Register Office,
Surrey Place,
Sheffield. SI 1 Y A .
Dear Mr. Rigby,
Thank you very much for your very helpful letter of the 23rd of October.
I
do appreciate the care and attention which you have applied to the queries
which I have raised.
I will be in touch with you again regarding this aspect,
to do so.
Yours sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H.M.Coroner.
BACAAZ
as soon as I am able
M I C H A E L RI GBY
S U PERINTENDENT REGISTRAR
OFFICE HOURS:
MONDAY TO FRIDAY
Regi st er Office
Surrey Pl ace
Sheff i el d S1 1Y A
9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
SLP/JT
MR/MT
Telephone No. 7 3 5 3 . 2 0 .
Mr Rigby
23rd October 1990
Dr S L Popper
H M Coroner
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
Dear Dr Popper
Re:
Hillsborough Inquests
Thank you for your letter dated 22nd October 1990 concerning the procedure
of registration of the deaths of the above.
Unfortunately the Registrar General has no legal authority to effect a
registration of a death and thus the death must be registered in the place
where it occurred. Once the Registrar General has considered the matter
and given his authority for the registrations to proceed, he will forward
the inquest certificates to this office with a single death register to
enter all the deaths of this tragedy.
Normally in the case of an inquest certificate received at this office from
yourself through the post, and no relative is present, the Registrar
effects the registration and sends a form 344 (for Social Security purposes)
and an application form for a death certificate from this office to the
person named on the inquest certificate as having received your order for
burial or cremation, together with an explanatory letter.
I have already nominated a Registrar to effect all the registrations on
receipt of the Registrar General's authority, and,'as previously explained,
a letter with the necessary forms would normally be sent to each person
named as having been issued with the burial or cremation order.
However, it may be preferable in this case to forward these documents to
the solicitors acting for the bereaved families as you suggest. Thus if
you could inform me of the names and addresses of these solicitors and for
whom they are acting, I will ensure that the Registrar forwards any
documents to the solicitor concerned.
Thanking you for all your assistance in this matter.
Yours sincerely
Superintendent Ffegis^far
22nd Oct ob e r
90
SLP/JT.
MR/MA.
Mr. M. Rigby,
Register Office,
Surrey Place,
Sheffield. SI 1YA.
Dear Mr. Rigby,
Re; Hillsborough Inquests.
Thank you very much indeed for your letter of the 17th of October.
What is not clear to me is how the death registrations will be dealt with
after the Registrar General has considered the matter.
Will he be issuing
the certificates direct to the bereaved families or will people have to
attend at Sheffield to collect them from your office?
If the Registrar General will issue the certificates direct, (which I think
probably is the most convenient way) can you please let me know what
arrangements if any you or he would propose, so that you might know who to
send them to.
It might be possible and perhaps most convenient if they were sent to the
solicitors acting for the bereaved familes, because that would just be one
address but no doubt you will consider this point.
Yours sincerely,
S .L.Popper,
H.M.Coroner.
BACAAG
MICHAEL RIGBY
SUPERINTENDENT REGISTRAR
OFFICE HOURS:
MONDAY TO FRIDAY
Regi ster Office
Surrey Pl ace
Shef f i el d S1 1Y A
9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
MR/MA
Telephone No. 7 3 5 3 . ..2D..
Mr.,.. Rigby.......
17th October 1990
Dr. S. L. Popper,
H.M. Coroner,
Watery Street,
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
Dear Dr. Popper,
Re.*
Hillsborough Inquests
With reference to your letter dated 12th October 1990 regarding the above,
it will be necessary to report all ninety-five deaths to the Registrar
General by the reason of their occurrence over one year ago.
I have consulted with the Registrar General and he has agreed that it
would be in order for you to forward all ninety-five Inquest Certificates
to him direct rather than initially forwarding them to this office.
The Registrar General has asked me to inform you that when you forward
these certificates to him that you mark the outside of the envelope with
the reference M&G90/3865D and address it to:
The Registrar General
General Register Office
St Catherine's House
10 Kingsway
LONDON
WC2B 6JP
He will then consider the matter.
I must point out that any envelopes received at that address with no
reference on them are sent to the Registrar General's office in Southport
for attention.
I hope this reply is to your satisfaction as I am, like yourself, anxious
that there is no delay in dealing with the registration process in order
to alleviate any further distress to relatives.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Superintendent Registrar
*
#
TEL
c-i
N o ,0244+341226
*
#
Coronial Cover 1 - 24 February 1991
Friday
1
Dr Halle
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
4
5
6
7
8
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Forrest
Forrest
Halle
Forrest
Forrest
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
11
12
13
14
15
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
18
19
20
21
22
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Dr
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Forrest
Subject to Alteration
Prepared 20 January 1991
HILLSBOROUGH INCIDENT 15 APRIL 1989 - MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENTATIVES OF
ELROND ENGINEERING LTD AND THE RESEARCH AND LABORATORY SERVICES DIVISION OF THE
HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE ON 18 JANUARY 1991
1.
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The meeting was held at the Sheffield premises of Research and Laboratory
Services Division (RLSD) of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The purpose
was to discuss points of apparent disagreement between the reports produced by
Elrond Engineering Ltd and HSE on technical aspects of the incident that
occurred on 15 April 1989 at Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s Hillsborough
Stadium.
2.
PRESENT
Deputy Chief Constable J Mervyn JONES - Cheshire Constabulary
Detective Inspector C PERKINS - Cheshire Constabulary
Mr N J BURNE - Elrond Engineering Ltd
Mr S O ’CONNOR - Elrond Engineering Ltd
Mr R ROLLIT - Elrong Engineering Ltd
Dr
Mr
Mr
Mr
Mr
3.
C
G
P
G
D
E NICHOLSON - RLSD, MSE
A C GAMES - RLSD, HSE
F HEYES - RLSD, HSE
NORTON - RLSD, HSE
WATERHOUSE - RLSD, HSE
DISCUSSION
DCC JONES explained that he was advising Dr S POPPER, Sheffield’s Coroner,
during the conduct of the Inquest to determine how 95 people died during this
incident. He said that the intention of the present meeting was to prevent
detailed technical matters from being debated in the Coroner’s Court, possibly
to the confusion of non-specialists.
DCC JONES said that the Coroner would be requiring HSE to give evidence during
the Inquest, which was likely to continue until March 1991. Elrond Engineering
would not be called as witnesses but would be represented by Hammond Suddards
who had retained them as technical advisors. He likened his own presence at
this meeting to that of a referee.
Mr BURNE said that he had many years experience of providing consultancy in
matters of dispute and arbitration. Elrond Engineering had been retained by
Hammond Suddards who were acting on behalf of the South Yorkshire Police. The
policy of Elrond Engineering was to present the facts truly and not to
’massage’ them to suit a particular case. He said that the findings of the
Elrond report that dealt with barrier 124A was based on an examination at West
Bromwich of this barrier, calculations, and site tests, all of which correlated
well.
Elrond’s findings were not just those of his own staff, but were
supported by Dr DICKIE of Manchester University, Dr BAKER of Imperial College,
and Halcrow and Partners.
Dr NICHOLSON said that there appeared to be two areas of contention between
Elrond and HSE; i.e. the estimate of the number of people in Pen 3, and the
collapse load of barrier 124A. He suggested that the occupancy of Pen 3 should
be discussed first and this was agreed.
-2-
3.1 NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN PEN 3
Mr NORTON showed the enlarged, composite photograph that he had used to
estimate the number of people in Pen 3 and Pen 4. He explained the method that
he had used to estimate the number of people in Pen 3 and Pen 4. He had
employed computer-aided draughting equipment for the superposition of crush
barriers, for the transfer of areas missing from photographs, and for counting
visible persons.
MR NORTON emphasised that only faces that were definitely visible had been
counted on the three rearmost rows, and that an estimated packing density of 10
persons/m2 had been used on the poorly defined front row. This packing density
was based on tests conducted at RLSD, and was supported by the trend of
increasing packing density in the rows down the terrace.
It was his opinion
that HS E’s estimate of 1,576 persons within Pen 3 (HSE report IR/L/ME/89/32)
would underestimate, rather than overestimate, the true occupancy of Pen 3 at
15.03 hours, the time marked on the composite photograph.
Mr BURNE said that the only photograph of the crowd available to them had been
the one shown in Lord Justice TAYLOR’S report. He said that Elrond had not
counted people standing within the area marked by cross-hatching at the mouth
of the tunnel.
It was his opinion that it should not be considered to form
part of the area of Pen 3 because people were not intended to stand there. He
said that Elrond had attempted to estimate the number of persons in obscured
areas.
He asked for RLSD’s estimate of the time that barrier 124A collapsed.
Dr NICHOLSON said that HSE had made repeated attempts to identify the collapse
of barrier 124A by examining video recordings of the crowd inPen 3, but had
been unable to make a positive identification of this event.
Mr BURNE said that Elrond had examined video recordings of the crowd in Pen 3
and had ’worked back’ from 15.15, a time identified by an ambulance on the
recording.
They had concluded that barrier 124A had collapsed between 15.05
and 15.06.
DCC JONES said that the evidence of witnesses suggested that barrier 124A had
collapsed between 15.00 and 15.06. His own best guess, based on this evidence,
was that the collapse occurred at 15.04.
Dr NICHOLSON asked whether Mr BURNE now found RLSD’s figure of 1,576 persons in
Pen 3 to be acceptable, in view of the explanations and discussion.
Mr BURNE said that he preferred a figure more in the region of1,400 persons,
but conceded that RLSD had worked from better information.
3.1.1 THE ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES OF PENS 3 AND 4
Dr NICHOLSON referred Mr BURNE to Page 26 of the Elrond report where it is
stated that "a density of 67.5 persons/10m2 represents a density representing
completely full capacity". Dr NICHOLSON said that even on the basis of a
person occupying a rectangular rather than an elliptical area of terrace, the
calculation provided a packing density of 80 persons/10m2. Mr BURNE said that
he would re-assess this particular calculation.
-3-
Mr BURNE said that he wished to draw particular attention to the ’Green Guide’
recommendation that people should not be more than 12 m from an exit. HSE’s
report IR/L/ME/89/35 made no reduction in the capacity of Pens 3 and 4 to
compensate for the departure from a recommendation.
Its implementation would
reduce the allowable capacities of these pens considerably.
Mr WATERHOUSE said that the authors had not considered themselves qualified to
make estimates of allowable crowd capacity, other than where the means for
making a mathematical calculation was indicated in the ’Green Guide’. He
referred to the final conclusion of this report which listed six further
departures from the recommendations of the ’Green Guide’, together with the
statement that "the maximum combined capacity of Pens 3 and 4 should be reduced
further because of these six departures."
Mr BURNE said that the capacities of the emergency exits from Pens 3 and 4
would also reduce the maximum allowable capacities shown in the HSE report. Mr
WATERHOUSE agreed that this might be the case. He and his co-author had
confined their estimation of maximum allowable capacities to the arrangements
on the terrace.
DCC JONES said that he would draw the attention of the Coroner to the matter of
the capacity of emergency exits that had been raised by Mr BURNE.
3.2 COLLAPSE LOAD OF BARRIER 124A
Mr BURNE commenced by explaining the load-deflection diagram shown on Page 60
of the Elrond report, and its significance when considering the failure of a
crush barrier.
He pointed out that there was a mistake in the illustration of
barrier 124A in HSE report IR/L/MM/89/11 in that the angle section forming the
front leg of support 3 had been drawn the wrong way round.
This was
acknowledged by H S E ’s representatives.
Dr NICHOLSON and Mr HEYES asked for a definition of failure, as used in the
context of the Elrond report. Mr BURNE said that failure involved yield,
cracking and tearing, all of which had occurred on barrier 124A. He agreed
that initiation of yield did not necessarily mean collapse, the term used by
RLSD to describe the failure of barrier 124A.
Mr BURNE said that a computer analysis made by Elrond, and subsequent tests
conducted by SGS on similar crush barriers, had demonstrated that barrier 124A
should be deemed to have failed the proof test made on it by Eastwood and
Partners in 1988. He said that Eastwood and Partners’ had mis-interpreted the
test requirements of the ’Green Guide’, and that the tensile properties of
wrought iron reported by HSE tended to overestimate the strength of the upper
rail of barrier 124A.
Mr HEYES pointed out that the tensile properties stated in HSE report
IR/L/MM/89/11 were not used in H SE ’s calculation of the collapse load of
barrier 124A, but were obtained from a bending test on a wrought iron top rail
taken from barrier 129. Following further discussion of the properties of the
barrier materials it was agreed that the tensile test properties obtained by
SGS and HSE were in reasonable agreement.
-4-
Mr NORTON asked whether the computer analysis made by Elrond was an elastic
analysis and was told that it was Mr GAMES said that there were dangers in
predicting the mode of collapse of barrier 124A from an elastic analysis.
Mr BURNE emphasised that the results of Elrond’s computer analysis and SGS’s
site tests were in agreement, and were supported by Dr DICKIE, Dr BAKER and Dr
WEAVER on behalf of Halcrow and Partners.
The analysis had been made for the
conditions of continuous rail and broken rail. Analysis and test results had
shown that yield of the top rail occurred with a loading of 2.5 KN/m, that the
fracture occurred at 6 KN/m.
Mr BURNE said that barrier 128A had failed during tests made by SGS at less
than 6 KN/m.
Dr NICHOLSON said that the tabulated results on Pages 24 and 25
of Appendix G of the Elrond report suggested that this barrier had withstood a
force of 7.24 KN/m. Mr BURNE said that the forces shown were marginally in
error and that a force of 7.24 KN should be taken to mean between 7.24 KN/m and
6 KN/m. An inaccuracy in the calibration of the pressure gauges with the
hydraulic jacks used to apply the test force caused the gauges to indicate
forces that were too high.
The degree of inaccuracy was not known, but was
probably of the order of a few percent.
Mr BURNE said that a cracking noise was heard during the testing of barrier
128A when the indicated load was 6 KN/m.
Examination had shown that the top
rail had cracked under one of the retaining clips and that a fracture was
present in the bottom rivet hole of the rear leg of the centre support.
There was a lengthy discussion on the details of the SGS tests and their
correlation with the elastic analysis of the stresses in the barrier. Mr BURNE
said that Elrond’s computer analysis showed that the first region to yield was
at the lower edge of the gusset plate was on the rear leg of the supports, and
that this occurred at 5.25 KN/m.
Mr NORTON and Mr GAMES said that RLSD’s elastic finite element analysis had
also shown this be the place where initial yielding would occur.
Their
analysis indicated that yielding would commence in both the top rail and the
supports at a load of less than 6 KN/m.
Mr BURNE said that barrier 128A was not so severely corroded as barrier 124A
and that the results of their analysis and the SGS tests caused him to conclude
that barrier 124A would have failed at a load of less than 6 KN/m on 15 April
1989.
Mr WATERHOUSE said that it was his opinion that span 3\4 had been the first
member of barrier 124A to collapse, due to the formation of plastic hinges.
This was followed by the collapse of span 2\3 as end 4 of span 3\4 parted from
its support and commenced pivoting about support 3. HSE’s calculations
suggested that this collapse commenced when the loading on span 3\4 was
approximately 8 KN/m.
Mr BURNE disagreed with this sequence of events.
He said that collapse
commenced at support 3, although it was probable that the collapse of this
support and that of the top rail of span 3\4 occurred almost instantaneously.
-5-
Mr WATERHOUSE asked if Elrond could be more precise in their estimate of the
collapse load of barrier 124A rather than stating it to be less than 6 KN/m.
Mr BURNE said that Elrond had stated a value of 5.25 KN/m on Page 6 of their
report and referred Mr WATERHOUSE to the diagram in Appendix L. Mr WATERHOUSE
said that Stage 2 of this diagram showed yielding below the gusset plate of the
rear leg of a support at a load of 5.25 KN/m, this being followed by Stages 3
and 4 in which increased deformation occurred up to a load of 7 KN/m.
Mr BURNE said that this was a mis-interpretation of the diagram, which was
intended to show the loads required to produce yield at different regions of
the barrier. He said that calculated results could be supplied to substantiate
the diagram in Appendix L. In response to a request by Dr NICHOLSON he said
that he would try to provide him with a copy of the report written for Halcrow
and Partners by Dr WEAVER, and to pursue the matter of the calibration of the
hydraulic jacks and gauges used by SGS in their tests.
D. Waterhouse
22.1.91
Our ref:
Date:
LML/RH
17 January 1991
School of Financial
Studies and Law
Pond Street
Sheffield SI 1WB
Telephone 0742 720911
Direct line 0742 533728
Fax 0742 533726
Telex 54680 SHPOLY G
Director
K Harrison BA
The Coroner's Office
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
Sheffield 3
Dear Sir
I am a part-time lecturer at Sheffield City Polytechnic, and am
also engaged upon research for a Master's degree into 'Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder* and its implications for the Law of
Tort. In this connection, I should be most grateful if you would
supply me with a transcript or any relevant information regarding
the inquest into the deaths of the victims of the Hillsborough
disaster. This would be of great assistance to me in my studies.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours sincerely
Lesley M Lomax
01/02 '91
09:35
FAX 0742 726247
MEDICO LGL CNTER
ACT IV ITY REPORT
T R A N S M I S S I O N OK
TRANSACTION =
0822
TT1
CORONERS
CO N N E C T I O N IHI,
736900
G3
C O N N ECT ION ID
ST ART iI Mi
U S A G E TIME
PAGES
02.01
09.34
0!)' 47
®001
M.S. HOWELLS
H.M. CORONER FOR THE DISTRICT
OF PEMBROKESHIRE
te e ,
mi
'ei'tace.
Telephone: Milford Haven (06462) 78129
ven.
MY R E F :
91
15th, January
YOUR REF:
19
MSH/JM
Dear Colleague,
I have recently had occasion to obtain from Mr. Peter
Birts, QC, an Opinion and draft Directions to the jury on
the topic of unlawful killing and corporate manslaughter.
I am, of course, willing to make copies of the Opinion and
draft Directions available to other Coroners,
but in
fairness to my Local Authority who have had to pay a fee of
£2,000 plus VAT for the Opinion, I cannot makes copies
available free of charge. Equally, nobody wishes to make a
profit, so possibly the fairest way of going about matters
is to ask if you would be interested in receiving a copy and
then I can notify all those who have expressed an interest
what the cost would be. If there is sufficient response, L
anticipate that the charge would be £50 or less.
j /
I look forward to hearing from you^
Yours sincerely,
!_[
1 1
Telephone:
(0 7 4 2 )7 2 6 4 4 4
Facsimile:
(0 7 4 2 )7 3 5 0 0 3
Telecom Gold 79:
Telex:
k(M*b
LLA 3020
265871 MONREF G (quote ref LLA 3020)
Y o u r reference:
JMJ/FR
O ur reference:
MW/PSW
Date:
23rd November
C O U N C I L
Administration & Legal
Department
1990
Head of Department
M ark W ebster,
Mr M Jones MSc
Deputy Chief Constable
Cheshire Constabulary
Police Headquarters
CHESTER
CHI 2PP
c ity solicitor
Town Hall
Sheffield
S1 2HH
Dear Mr Jones
RE:
Thank you for your communication of 21st November 1990 concerning the
availability of the Council Chamber for the Inquests on the days when the
Council is due to meet.
During my conversation with your Administrative Assistant, Sue Harper, on
Monday, 19th November, I stated that the Chamber will be available to the
Coroner and that arrangements would be made for the Council meeting to
take place elsewhere.
I understand that Sue Harper, subsequently
telephoned my office and asked my Secretary to fax confirmation of such
arrangements and this request was complied with the same day.
With regard to future Council meetings, the same reasoning .and .approach
is to be adopted namely that the Council will not bfe^mfe^ting^ the
Coroner wishes to sit on those days; in other words, the Inquests can go
ahead and the Council will make alternative arrangements unless we
experience particular problems with the 28th November.
If problems do
arise which will need consideration before the next Council meeting in
January 1991, I am confident they can be resolved by our officers co
operating.
A further request from your Administrative Assistant this afternoon is
that a response to your letter must be received before arrangements for
next Wednesday can be made.
I hope my response is sufficient.
Yours sincerely
KeithTrelfa
city Solicitor and Head of Administration
Elizabeth Bashforth
Senior Assistant Head
(Administration)
Assistant Head (Legal)
CC Dr S L Popper, HM Coroner
For telephone enquiries on
R2220/X14
this m atter please ring:
..(STD Code 0742)
HSE
Health & Safety Executive
to
v*Jik
^ o i o H
13-
bo
lo
\ |) I o v m \ ^
^
tav W i t
t ^ v \ \
^ W
.te i
§ * )!%
l \ W vcvdjL ^|\JU *C vvU _ K
\\X
u J j ^ V '
with compliments
Sovereign House, 40 Silver'Stfêt, Sheffield S1 2ES
Tel: 0742 739081
10 Figure 3 shows how major injury numbers and rates
have changed since 1986/87. The provisional 1989/90
figure for reported major injuries is 19 941, virtually the
that self-employed people have a higher fatal injury rate
than employees (see previous paragraph), this suggests a
high level of under-reporting of major injuries by selfemployed people. This is even more marked for over-3-day
injuries where the 1989/90 reported rate of 58.0 was less
than one twelfth of the rate for employees, although an
additional factor here may be a lower propensity for selfemployed people to take time off work.
thf,fmal figure for 1988/89- The fmal figure for
1989/90 is likely to be around 20 600. Taking account of
the increases in employment levels referred to in
paragraph 8, and if the upward revision is as expected,
the final reported major injury rate seems likely to have
marginally from 91.3 in 1988/89 to around 92 in
1989/90. This would still be well below the 1986/87 rate of
N on-em ployed people
99.1. It should be noted that comparisons for major
injuries cannot be made between the years before and
14 In addition to employees and self-employed people, the
after 1 April 1986 because of a widening of the definition
RIDDOR system includes a requirement to report injuries
of major injury introduced by the RIDDOR reporting
fe>non-employed people (described on the report form as
regulations. The provisional 1989/90 figure for reported
other persons’). In sectors such as construction, energy
over-3-day injuries is 161 648, and the final figure is likely
and manufacturing reported injuries generally relate to
to be around 168 000. This would give an injury rate of
members of the public. In the service sector they include
749.4 per 100 000 employees, very similar to the rate in
injuries to pupils, patients and people in residential homes.
both 1987/88 and 1988/89.
11 It should be noted that, contrary to the picture across
industry as a whole, injury rates have risen in a number
of industries in each of the past two years. This is
discussed further in paragraphs 22 and 23 below, but it is
particularly notable that major injury rates amongst
employees in the construction industry have risen by
more than 10% over this period.
S elf-em p loyed p eople
15 The provisional 1989/90 figure of 197 fatal injuries to
non-employed people, which includes the deaths of 95
people in the tragedy at Hillsborough Football Ground, is
76 higher than the final figure for the previous year. The
service sector is consistently the major source of fatal
injuries to non-employed people (over 80 fatalities in both
1987/88 and 1988/89), followed by construction and
agriculture (each averaging around 13 fatalities in the past
few years).
16 As explained in last year’s Report, the process of
12 The provisional 1989/90 figure of 87 reported fatalities
examining the quality of the databases had revealed a
to self-employed people is seven higher than the final
significant degree of misinterpretation by employers when
figure for 1988/89, reflecting an increase of 8.7% in the
completing the RIDDOR report forms which had led to the
number of self-employed people. The provisional fatal
misallocation of a number of employees and self-employed
injupr rate for self-employed people was 2.7, as compared
people to the 'other persons’ category. Subsequent detailed
with 1.5 for employees, reflecting the concentration of selfinvestigations have resulted in a revision to the injury
employed people working in two high risk industries
figures in this category for all the years since the
(construction and agriculture). Over 80% of the reported
introduction of RIDDOR, significantly affecting the picture
fatal injuries to self-employed people in 1989/90 were to
on numbers of major injuries to members of the public in
workers in the agricultural and construction sectors
some sectors - notably construction and manufacturing.
which account for just over 30% of all self-employment.
The provisional 1989/90 figures for numbers of fatalities
17 The 1988/89 overall figure for reported major injuries to
represent an increase in both these sectors, marginal in
non-employed people has been revised downwards from
the case of agriculture, but up from 36 to 44 in
14 074 to 12 614, with similar revisions for the previous
construction. This latter increase is in line with the 20%
two years. Most injuries to non-employed people happen as
rise in the number of self-employed people in the
a result of service sector activity and this sector therefore
construction sector between 1988/89 and 1989/90.
accounts for a large part of these reductions.
Proportionately, however, the most significant reductions
13 The provisional 1989/90 figure for reported major
have related to construction, where the 1988/89 figure for
injuries to self-employed people shows an increase for the
major injuries to non- employed people has been revised
third successive year, again probably largely explained by
downwards from 630 to 132, and in manufacturing, where
the growth in the number of self-employed people,
there has been a reduction from 515 to 57. For agriculture
particularly in the construction sector. Over 70% of the
and energy the figures have been revised downwards by a
reported major injuries to self- employed people were in
third and a half respectively. The revised figures are
the construction sector and in that sector the increase of
broadly consistent with those under the previous reporting
170 between 1988/89 and 1989/90 was in fact greater than
arrangements and may now properly be interpreted as
the net increase across all industries. The increases in
relating primarily to members of the public.
injury numbers and rates for both major and over-3-day
injuries in each year since 1986/87 appear to be largely
18 The provisional 1989/90 figure of 13 reported fatal
due to increases in the number of reported injuries to self- injuries to children in the agricultural, energy,
employed people in the construction industry. The figures
manufacturing and construction sectors is substantially
moreover, substantially understate the position. The
lower than the final 1988/89 figure of 23 (down from 9 to 2
reported major injury rate for self-employed people in
in construction). The provisional figure for reported major
1989/90 was 40.4, less than half that for employees. Given
injuries to children is also down in these four sectors from
66
, ...
FIGURE 4 Fatal and major injuries to em ployees reported to all enforcement, authorities
by SIC 80 class •* highest incidence rates per 100 000 em plovccs 1989/90uIS M * !
(a) Data for period 1 April 1989 to 31 December 1989
Injury numbers
8%iEI
fiMP'i
mmm
n
Co:il fxtnicdon
I®®
Otkc nvens
SlSSi*'
MIf
ssesa
Metal manufacturing
Construction
Forestry
i s *
Food, drink and tobacco
,
Timber and \vix>d<‘n fiiniiiLircMan-made fibres
u
IlSfaiHifacture of meta! goods nos
Non-metallic mineral products
IPliiil
Extraction of oil-^;is
Rubber and plasiic.s
Mineral oil prucessinjj
Railways (a)
M industries
•zM&m
117 in 1988/89 to 87 in 1989/90. However, although there
-'ere decreases in three of the sectors, the number of
eported major injuries to children in the construction
sector is 3 higher than the final 1988/89 figure of 46.
«
Particular industries
19 Figure 4 shows the 15 industrial activities with the
highest fatal and major injury rates in 1989/90, together
with the provisional injury numbers for each of the
activities. It illustrates the relatively high risks run by
workers in these activities, in most cases at least double
the average for workers in all industries. The 1989/90 fatal
and major injur)- rate for the railways industry (estimated,
for reasons explained in paragraph 7) is likely to be
around 180 per 100 000 employees, well below the final
figure of 243.5 for 1988/89, but still high enough for it to
fall within the list of 15 activities with the highest fatal
and major injury rates.
employed in many service sector activities means that,
while only the railway industry is among the 15 activities
with the highest fatal and major injury rates, six are
within the top 15 for injury numbers. The figures for
injury rates, which are also shown in Figure 5, confirm
that these tend to be lower in the service sector activities.
However, the rate in public administration approaches the
all industry average, while the rate for postal services and
telecommunications is above that for all industries.
21 Figure 6 provides a similar analysis to Figure 4 for all
reported injuries. The 15 activities accounted for 38.3% of
all reported injuries, as against only 13.8% of
employment. Postal services and telecommunications, as
well as coal extraction, construction and the food, drink
and tobacco industry, are activities with both high rates
and high numbers.
22 Table B lists those activities where the fatal and major
injury rates to employees have increased in each of the
last two years. (Of these there is only one activity, renting
20 In activities such as coal extraction, construction and
the food, drink and tobacco industry a combination of high
of moveables, where the rate increased in each of the last
injury rates and large numbers of people employed results
three years.) The Table includes some activities where the
increase was small, some where despite the increase the
in very high numbers of injuries. Overall the 15 activities
■' rate remained low, and others where the small number of
shown in Figure 4 accounted for 40.9% of reported fatal
injuries means that the rate can fluctuate markedly from
and major injuries, as against only 13.6% of employment.
year to year. However, activities such as construction (up
Figure 5 shows the 15 industrial activities with the highest
10% since 1987/88) and food, drink and tobacco (up 8%)
numbers of reported injuries. The large number of people
FILE NOTE DICTATED 4.12.90. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR.
MICHAEL POWERS, COUNSEL,
3.12.90.
Short conversation with Dr. Powers, about 6 8 minutes. Two
points discussed
1.
Property and witnesses.
wasn't any.
Dr. Powers agreed that there
He also didn't feel that it was
reprehensible.
2.
I then outlined to him the problem with McCauley's
evidence namely, that he wanted to produce evidence
relating to a previus incident at that ground, where
he was describing a build-up, turnstiles not coping
people climbing out etc.
Before I was able to put to
Dr. Powers my thoughts, he said that in his view it
would be right to allow the witness to give the
evidence but limit it to a. what he actually saw and
b. to allow this sort of evidence or questions
relating to it in cross-examination when they were
directed towards establishing the reliability/quality
of the witnesses evidence.
This sounded precisely what I had in mind.
3.
Dr. Powers said that he had not yet had time to look
at my instructions.
BADABZ
FILE
NOTE
DICTATED
4.12.90.
TELEPHONE
CONVERSATION WITH
JOHN BURTON 2.12.90._______________________________________
1.
John Burton didn't think that I could stop people
photocopying the transcripts once they came into their
possession.
I wasn't quite sure why he took that
view. He also thought that shorthand writers usually
have the copyright in their transcriptions
(I dont't
think this applies in this case because Mr. Davison
clearly indicated that the copyright was with us.
2.
I asked him about property and witnesses.
He agreed
that people had a right to ask questions.
3.
I briefly discussed with him the problem with Mr.
McCauley's evidence but he wasn't able to make any
particular helpful or indeed any contribution to that.
I made it clear of course to him that the final
decision on the matter would be mine.
4.
He said he wished me well and that they were all
behind me. With regard to the property and witnesses
he said he had actually had a case where the witnesses
not only were approached but were paid money.
In his
view such facts, even without the payment of money,
went to the credibility of the witness.
BADABY
FILE NOTE
1.12.90
Telephone conversation John Burton
in the afternoon
I asked him what he thought about transcripts and the duplication
at the reduced price. He seemed to think that once the transcripts
had been handed over, we had no further control over them and
didn't think that there was any copyright in them. He seemed
to base this on the fact that the fee originally did not refer
to photocopies and that this was a later edition. I couldn't
quite follow his reasoning on this point but he did feel that
there was no crime on society on whether or not the Council
allowed copies to be made available at a reduced price, subject
of course to ensuring that they only went to appropriate parties.
I asked him what he thought about people taking statements
from witnesses. He said he had had this before and, in fact,
in his incident he'd paid the witness. My impression was that
he felt that there wasn't very much he could do about it except
that in his view this destroyed the credibility of the witness
and what he did not to ask the witnesses whether they had had
any contact and if the answer was "yes", as far as he was
concerned compromised the quality of the evidence even if,
in fact, the witness was telling the truth. Clearly it was
a matter for the Jury to make that assessment.
I talked to him for a few minutes about the problem of intro
ducing evidence of other matches as is with one of the witnesses
and asked him what he would do. He said obviously this was
a matter for me. His response was that it was a difficult
problem and didn't really know. He thought that it was perfectly
proper to ask a witness whether a similar incident had occurred
in the past in connection with other matches and to use the
information, so to speak, in part of the cross-examination
technique rather than as direct evidence. I said that I was
thinking of possibly allowing a witness to state as a fact
what happened but not to draw conclusions or to try and give
explanations as to why the situation had arisen. This is in
respect of a lay witness describing events at matches of 1989.
He thought that that might well be a quite convenient way of
dealing with the matter.
I thanked him for his help.
SLF/BW
Director ofPublicProsecutions
DeputyDirector and ChiefExecutive
Allan Green Q.C.
D.S. Gandy CBOBE
Director of Headquarters Casework
C. W. P. Newell
Crown Prosecution Service
D r S L Popper
Medico-Legal Centre
Watery Street
Sheffield S3 7ET
Headquarters Casework
10 Furnival Street
London
EC4A1PE
Telephone 071 -417
Switchboard 071-417-7000
ûrRef:
OurRef:
PGK/3341/89
Date:
1^.11.90
Dear Dr Popper
Hillsborough Stadium Disaster
Thank you for your letter of 9 November 1990 concerning Rule
28 of the Coroners Rules 1984 and the Director of Public
Prosecution's decision, that there were to be no criminal
prosecutions instituted in this c a s e .
I should be grateful if you would accept this letter as formal
notification from the Director that an adjournment under Rule
28 will be unnecessary" in this c a s e . The Director will
consider any new evidence at the conclusion of the inquest
hearings.
Yours faithfully
C: J CLEUGH
Head of Police Complaints Division
C C 011311
Fax 071-430-015^Q \
or 071-430-202^s
Telex264719 LCSFIG
Britdoc DX499 London/
ChanceryLane
1 3 /1 1 ; ’90
1 1; 2 t e ^ @
■.* '•*''
rr
.
'■
WATERY STREET
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
office of h.
m .coroner for
'/&:\-
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
(W est District)
":ii
m
J ■■■
MEDICO LGL CNTER
1 8 0 9
;v *' '■'■>' ^ - -s■,»
F'■ ';i.
STEFAN L POPPER, LLB,B.MEDSCL,B_M,B.S..M.R_C.Q_P.
CO RO N ER
19-9-0-
Telephornj: SHEFFIELD (07i2) 738721
SLP/JT,
Dear Sir,
Re HILLSBOROUGH INQUESTS - VIDEO REGORDINGS.
You will of course be aware that your client was interviewed under t_he PACE
procedure and that this interview was audio taped m the usual manne-L..
I also understand that in addition to the audio tape, a video recording of
the interviews was prepared.
This video recording being however so to i>peas;
extra statutory.
I understand that it was done with the consent of your
client, and on the understanding that it would not oe usea in proceedings.
It is my intention, to have the audio tapes played to tne Jury at an
appropriate point in the resumed Inquests.
It occurs to me however that if the video recording is of good enough quality
(which I in fact understand it is), that it might be better and easier to
follow if we showed the video recording rather than listen to the audio tapeI would not however w i s h to do this without the express consent of yourself
and your clients.
I would therefore be grateful if you could please let me
know whether you. or your client would have any cbj ection to i»he vioeo
recording being used at the inquest.
I want to make it quite clear that this is entirely your decision and if you
would prefer that the video is not used, then we -will respect your
wish and use the audio tapes.
Yours faithfully,
n
s.L./op^r
H.M.Coroner-
fentu
RBEOG
BACAAU
1,
(*■
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
(W est D istrict)
WATERY STREET,
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
STEFAN L PO PPER . LLB., B.MED. Sci., B.M., B.S., M R.C G P
CO RO N ER
Telephone: SHEFFIELD 10742) 738721
9th Nov,
1990..
Your Ref: PGK.3341.89
Mr. M.G. Kennedy,
Crown Prosecution Service,
Headquarters Casework,
10 Furnival St.,
London,
EC4A 1PE
Dear Mr. Kennedy,
Re: Hillsborough Football Stadium Disaster.
I refer to your letter of 30th August 1990 and my telephone
conversation with you on 7th Nov. 1990 in which I spoke to you about
Rule 28 of the Coroner's Rules 1984.
You will of course recollect that in August you notified me that
having considered the evidence the Director of Public Prosecution
had come to the conclusion that criminal prosecutions should not be
commenced against various specified parties. In the light of that
the provisions of Section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988 did not apply
and I have fixed the date for the start of the resumption of the
inquests into the deaths., of the various persons concerned as 19th
November 1990.
Under the provisions of Rule 28 I have to adjourn for 14 days
in certain events unless I have been previously notified by the
Director of Public Prosecutions that an adjournment is unnecessary.
In order to avoid procedural hiccups and unnecessary adjournments and
in view of the fact that you have already considered evidence in these
cases I would be grateful if you could let me have the Director's
notification as outlined above as soon as possible. I understand that
notifications in such terms were provided in the Zeebruggen disaster
inquests and I expect in other cases as well.
I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.
Yours, sinty^rely,
S. L. Popp4jd/
H. M. Cordnei^r
P.S. Letter faxed to 071 430 0154.
7 : ■
i
rh,
S<.;„th
. ,;S;
■
** !"
'!\
;
*.'■
P • •5 !. , •
-,t- ,
r‘
-r.V ;it‘
v *'
K .
(, ••
t►,
.
<•*---v
-;r. * I ,
, ,
u'i■
■:
t
' s».<'
•
'
•*
.
•!'•
, ...
t ,
i-. ■ .
..
....
:1
> -.
'
J
'-f
,
*•'
* - s i.r.t •
; . : . -
■ . s.j ’ - *;
f
f* '>
r
v ! ..
; 'V
-f- , • i
r
'i
■. ■
,
!
1• s ‘
e f
1 •
’
‘
1 c
t
, -r (
«-i.
w!:*>
a
i'.Vf 5
i
; , .n
!
1
,>
f ' H
: ' r .!
f
r> «■ I'
1 J
'*
i
tr-'.f
>*,
■ Of-
.* .
: !
-. .
:
■ ■„: 5-*'
■ t-
' .
■’ . . .
•
-
.
.. .. -5. ., -: ;.
'}"<!
- -’
.---
•-
’
f
.' ! ' * V
<■ .
, v >. . v
;
. . '.
5i i i
.
*•>’'<-- ■ " 'r r -, ’ <-*.
ftnrf
.
I
t
r , ; •;
^ ,
1- -,-xr. r
i lid i i
; n
t a k e-
« ,J
,j
*
r e v i e w .
\ r . . -. - - # -
. ..
t (it-
Ci.J r >
r >- 1 ,/
| -■
t< ‘
.
- ^ : .. .I;
:;
«..-
'•!:-■■■
;
V
--■K'"-‘'
»;;V -
?
a*
f u f i ■
....
r
.
, ..
' .. . .-»
-
t-
c» i
V .5ff.:
t
-V, ^
t’-.':
-r-y '
,
sn- <• .-.j r .11: :. . <r.
>.. .
.
t’ o r
; ;
,
-J.
i
r:f-w- * r
, *- .1- j ,
:-^-'
>■
‘
..- S
.A
f* • .
(<.-.<■
,
.. J
• a i•
:v
, ;
. .»f. -, v *■'
j-'•
.
\
,
....;-
' . . f- -V:
" v i -
•■5'f !. .41 1..-r »■*.
-
:
.
• j •;.,
.'. J * - . •i
I’ :l'
.
--f
t,':
t ig t . ? r {t- .i. »
:iil
r..’
-'
p-»r -
t
i - . i .-
■..■■■< ‘ --r
’ -o-/‘ r.r
r ht
’
->■:,* ‘ ; r'-- '' r -
n.-. 1 v .-.(j-j >i-
, f ,.,5
■'■.
;j- 1 ,, t i : \ - .:
' *.-1 .f !■> b’.-'- •■
?,:rj !’ ••
r : :.
-.
11 '.'■>
••« i
.
>: *’
j
Uu...-IP
•
fc.
.
V ’ ►
‘
.
w-:'*
'
'.<~! f ;
;u » ir,c
1.
:
.
-....A
V •:
:
v --
i ,
' ‘
•,:J.- .•■'- ■
•T»■■ h -i.•- :
!4 ' -it; '
■V -* ;
; f!
--
' ' .. •
•
■ ■
V
JtilV i! fiv
; ■
v
-
’<
e
-
■-'•': ' ‘ •
JHJ/CP
6 November 1990
Hr Graham Kackrell
Secretary
Sheffield Wednesday Football Club
Hillsborough
SHEFFIELD
RECX5HVESED INQUESTS
As you kuov, the inquests will be re-c<?nv*ned in Sheffield on Monday 19th
November 1990; If is conceivable that they will run for several weeks,
The Coroner, Dr S L Popper, will be holding the inquests vith jury meabsrs
who will require some familiarisation of the ground and the locality.
Dr Popper would propose to use Wednesday 28th November 1990 as the "flay out”
of court and I wondered, on his behalf, If It would be possible for a visit
to be made to the ground>
I appreciate that this is yet another request
and 1 sincerely understand the disruption it can cause; hopefully this will
be the last such visit from the ’’official” side.
It Is proposed to take the
jury out between 10 a,n>, end 1 p,m, on chat day» part of which will take in
your ground for say an hour,
I wonder, therefore, could vou and vour Chairman facilitate such a visit?
14th March 1990
Our Ref: Hills/sol/1
To solicitors on the record
acting for bereaved relatives,
and to the Hillsborough Steering Committee.
Uear Sirs,
Limited Resumed Inquests - Hillsborough
iou will of course be aware that I have decided to resume the Inquests
(on a limited basis) into the deaths of the persons who lost their
lives on 15th April 1989 at Hillsborough.
You will also be aware that the intention is to take the post mortem
evidence together with a summary of the evidence as it relates to
location of the deceased, the time of death as far as it can
reasonably be established and to clear up any minor matters such as
spelling of names.
The basic format for the inquests will be that the evidence will
be presented either t>y way of documentary evidence eg. post mortem
report or in trie case of the summary by presentation by a West
Midlands Police officer.
The evidence will be presented in a non adversarial fashion and is
intended to give to you and in particular your client(s) non
controversial evidence as it relates to each individual deceased
which is available. I an sure that you will appreciate that tne
quality and quantity of evidence which it has been possible to obtain
varies from person to person.
It must be clearly understood and it is the basis on which I have
decided to resume the inquests at this stage that no evidence will be
taken nor will questions or comments be permitted which could be
considered as attacking or criticising anybody or person incorporate
or otherwise or which could in any way be construed as obstruction or
conproraising the investigation which is still being undertaken by the
DPP and on which to date no conclusion has been reached.
In order to enable yotp'and if you so wish your client(s) to be aware
of the scope of the evidence a copy of the summary will be sent to
you as soon as possible in order to enable you to consider it anti in
particular to enable you client to be prepared for the evidence.
Although it will not be possible to recast the summaries into a
different format it may that in some case there may be a particular
point which is not clear to you or there may be some question which
your client is particularly anxious about and which is not clearly
dealt v.’iLn on the summary or the post mortem.
In sucii a case please let me know the point or question that you wish
to have more information on. I cannot give any undertaking that
questions submitted can or will be dealt with but provided that the
points or questions fall within the parameter of the resumed inquest
then they will be sympathetically considered and if it is conveniently
possible to deal with them at the hearing it will be done.
It may also be that either you or your clients may be aware cl other
witnesses who are not referred to in the summaries. The case files do
not contain every witness statement which has been obtained.
Statements which are thought not to advance the evidence have been
excluded from the files prepared for me. However if you wish me to
consider any particular statement which you are aware of and which
is not mentioned in the summary please let me have details so that X
may consider it.
I think that in the majority of the cases it will not be necessary to
call the pathologist to the inquest but there may be a few cases where
a client particularly wishes to hear the pathologist in person. If
that applies to any of your clients please let me know as soon as
possible. I will then consider the evidence in the light of this
request.
I have to make it clear that under no circumstances will any South
Yorkshire Police officer be called to give oral evidence at these
resumed hearings. From my assessment of the files to date I think it
is unlikely that I will be calling any witnesses other than WIIP
officers and possibly in a few cases the pathologists to give oral
evidence.
The case files are in the course of being prepared and in order to
give you as nuch time as possible and also to spread the load over
a period it is proposed to start sending out the summaries towards
the enc of this week or the beginning of the next. A consequence of
this is that some families will be aware of the contents of the
summaries before others. I would begrateful if you would make it
clear to your client(s) particularly if theyare the ones whose
sur'.nary has not yet been sent out that there is nothing sinister in
this but that it is simply a question of logistics.
I am not yet in a position to let you know when any particular inquest
will take place. I will of course try to let you have as much notice
as possible but I am sure that you will appreciate that this is quite
a complex operation and that you must be prepared for alterations in
listing information even at the last moment.I appreciate the
inconvenience that this may cause and I will try to minimise it but I
fear that it is inevitable.
In this
listing
whether
wish to
connection I would be grateful if you would please let my
officer whose address appears on the attached sheet know
you are presently aware of any of your clients who do not
attend the inquest relating to their loved one.
Please also let my listing officer know whether there are any major
committments of your clients which might make it difficult for them
to attend on any particular dates. Whilst I will try to take such
information into account it may not be possible to meet all wishes
and the final decision on timing and date will be taken by me and my
officers.
Yours faithfully,
S. L. Popper.
H.M. Coroner.
Listing Officer
A G E N D A
Friday 2nd November 1990
Running Order of Court
Final List of Witnesses
Scene setters - Chief Suprintendent FOSTER
Documents in Court
Original statements/documents - complaints and discipline files
Witness expense forms
List of witnesses to Legal Representatives
Daily list of witnesses - given 48 hours notice
Rail warrants
Liaison Officer
Social Services meeting arranged - matters to be discussed ._
Model of Ground
—
^
Final visit Friday 16th November 1990 - Who will attend?
Overtime - travelling weekends - inclement weather and hotel bookings
Weekend witness warning
Complaints - SPEARRITT, OWENS etc.
Disclosure of information
Dr POPPER’S letter of 27th October 1990 - Turnstiles
Proforma for Court
TEL N o .0244-343197
;i
Uct
90 1 3 : 4 9
POLICY NOTE;
r.>
WEDNESDAY 31 OCTOBER 3.990 - 1135 HOURS
T ele phone discussion v i t h Mr Cliff Smediey in respect or the
artartgerneftts for 6 Decemb er 1990 when
the ’’Special
t unction'1
will take y l a c « al the 'Town Hall*
f
1 have agreed chat the Coroner will make sufficient annouiiceiueiitB
;
.on the days preceding the 6th that the facilities oi the M a n d e l ^ ^ X
■ Room and Ch& Reception Room will M O T fce available,
h o w e v e r 3 the
Inquests w i l l continue in the Council Charaher,
■v'
./
f
■
h
thh
h>'
|v ■
No . 006
P.
Telephone:
Telecom Gold 76:
Fax:
Telex:
(0 742)734 611
LM X877 (Env. Health) LM X878 (Consumer Serv.)
(0742) 7 3 6464 (Town Hall Chambers)
(0742) 402531 (Trading Standards)
(0742) 73 4692 (Env. Services)
9 3 1213 227 0 (IF G)
cC
Your reference:
Our reference:
Date:
RM/PB
„ „
I T Y
C O U N C I L
,
30th October 1990
Health and Consumer
Services
Dr. S. Popper
H. M. Coroner
Medico-Legal Centre
Director
D W Purchon
m ie h
AMinstwM
Town Hall Chambers
1 Barkers Pool
Sheffield
S1 1EN
Dear Stefan
USE OF RECEPTION ROOMS ON THURSDAY, 6TH DECEMBER 1990
Further to our telephone conversation on 22nd October, I write to
confirm the request from Publicity Department that they be allowed
to use the Town Hall Reception Rooms on Thursday, 6th December for an
event which has already been booked, publicised and booking fees
received.
As I explained, any need to relocate the event to a hotel conference
suite would considerably increase costs and the event would make a
loss.
You agreed that you would avoid using the Reception Rooms on that
day, by an adjournment if you felt it necessary.
I have been asked to thank you on behalf of the Publicity Department
for your kind assistance and understanding in this matter.
Many thanks.
Yours sincerely
ROGER MICHIE
Assistant Director of Health
and Consumer Services
All com munications
to be addressed
'Director o f Health &
Consumer Services'
For enquiries on this
matter telephone
H EALTH Y;
SHEFFIELD!
V* Health and Consumer Services include:
\ A Air Pollution, Ammai Welfare, Cemeteriesand
m f lli
liS f
Jw A
734632 — Mr. Michie
^
Crematoria, Consumer Protection, Dog Warden Service,
Drainageand Pest Control, Environmental Nuisances
food Hygiene, Health and Safety at Work, Home Safety,
Meat Inspection, Metrology, Noise Control,
Standards Testing, Trading Standards.
p rin te d o n recycled p aper
R 8607
(CJL
FILE NOTE DATED 30.10.90. TELEPHONE CALL WITH MR. SMEDLEY
RE THE 6th OF DECEMBER AND THE HOLDING OF THE INQUEST IN
THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Apparently the problem is that the limit of the number of
people in the public part of the Town Hall is 350.
They
anticipate using 60 to 100 in the Mandella Reception Rooms.
I said in that case we would limit outselves to about 200
which would give them an extra 50 above their highest
estimate.
BACABL
I couldn't see any problems nor could he.
2
FILE NOTE
29.10.90.
TELEPHONE
WITH
MR.
CONVERSATION W
I T H HR.
FRAZER
FRAZER.
r*
I told him the substance of Mr. Beechey's report to me
about Mrs. Coleman.
Mr. Frazer said
problem as far as he was concerned.
meeting was intended for lawyers.
was a real
He agreed that the
It was not intended for
the general public, but he could see that we might have
difficulty if she was actually physically in the building,
to exclude her.
He said his understanding was that Mr.
Hicks, the Chairman of the Group felt that she should not
be there.
I explained to him that I in principle thought that she
shouldnt be there though in practice I didnt really think
that much harm could come of it as we were not discussing
anything that we wanted to hide.
I was however very concerned that from what she had told
Mr. Beechey that the f a m i l ^c l e a r l y had high expectations
which would not be met at this meeting.
with t h i s .
Mr. Frazer agreed
He said that they did seem to think that there
would be all kinds of relevations, whereas the purpose of
the meeting was simply to assist the lawyers in sorting
things out to make the running of the Inquests
for themselves more smooth.
I asked him if he could
perhaps, despite the lateness of the hour, convey this to
people as I was very anxious that they should not come on a
wastedjourney.
On the other hand, I did not want them in
any sense of the word to feel that they were being
BACABH
3
excluded.
-
My objective was to make sure that they were
treated fairly^ correctly, that justice was not only done
but was seen to be done.
Mr. Frazer said that he had actually been on the phone with
Mr. Hicks when I rang through in the first instance when he
was trying to explain the object of this meeting to him.
Mr. Hicks apparently was going to try and let people
understand this.
Mr. Frazer raised the issue of re-opening the Inquests.
Apparently there were a few families who had some issues
arising out of the earlier hearings which they wanted
clearing up.
He said that he was trying to ascertain
precisely what it was but it might be worth just using a
day at the beginning to deal with any outstanding points.
I explained to him that it would depend on what was raised.
I mentioned that I had had a long letter from Mr. Glover in
which he raised several points which I was responding to
but in a nutshell I was actually saying no to him as I
didnt think that the points which he was raising justified
re-opening or were appropriate.
I said it really depended
on what was at issue.
He also told me that in fact they were not representing all
the deceased.
There was a substantial body who were either
not going to be represented and who had declared that they
had wanted nothing further to do with the matter or who
would represent themselves.
would be very many of these.
BACABH
He didnt think that there
Apparently he kijfws who they
are but at Mr. Hick's express instructions, he has not
disclosed the names as yet.
I explained to him that I was
less concerned to know who they were representing and was
more interested to know who they were not as we would have
to write to them to make sure that they knew what was going
on etc.
It was exactly the same point as before.
I felt
it was important that people should clearly understand
what was happening so that they could take proper rational
decisions.
He said he would have a word with Mr.
and let me know.
Hicks
I also explained to him that if some of
the people who were on his represented list subsequently
dropped out, then he could of course add those and we would
add them to our non-represented list so to speak.
BACABH
FILE NOTE
DATED
29.10.90.
RUSSELL,
S O C I A L W O R K E R PHONED.
She had heard about the meeting to-morrow 30th.
Understood
that it was for lawyers mainly but for any interested
party.
Was it appropriate that she should attend.
explained to her that it was for lawyers.
procedural.
I
It was
Interested parties were allowed to attend,
mainly so that they could be quite sure that everything
that was being done was above board but not appropriate for
them to attend.
BACABI
FILE NOTE.
Mr. Hylands H.S.E. rang.
29th.
BABACM
He suggested a meeting on Monday
We agreed 2.p.m. at the Medico Legal Centre.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE
(West District)
WATERY STREET,
SHEFFIELD
S3 7ET
STEFAN L. POPPER. LL.B., B.MED. S ci., B.M., B.S., M.R.C G P
CORONER
T elephone. SHEFFIELD (07425 738721
.3.1st, .October.,19 ..9.0
Dear Sirs,
Hillsborough resumed inquests 19th Nov. 1990
I refer to our meeting on 30th October 1990 at the Medico Legal Centre
when we discussed various procedural aspects.
One of the points which was raised was to try to construct an agreed
extract from the report of Lord Justice Taylor which could deal as I
understood it with in the main factual matters on which all the
parties were agreed and so save time and effort.
For some reason I did not make it clear at that point
have in hand the preparation of various statements to
WMP officers which are intended to be 'scene setters'
think will meet the objectives which some of you were
achieve.
that I already
be presented by
and which I
trying to
I am writing to you now on this as it may help you in connection
with your planning.
If we can get the paper work together in time it may be possible to
circulate these statements to those firms that were present at the
meeting on 30th October 1990 in order to enable you to comment if you
perceive any factual errors. If you have no comment I will take it
that the statements are agreed. This will be of assistance to me, the
jury and all the interested parties.
I do want however to make it clear that the only evidence which will
be relevant will be what is put before the jury and the circulation of
such statements are intended simply as an aid to you .
Yours faitMully,
S. L. Popp^H.M. Coroner
FILE NOTE DATED 21.10.90. TELEPHONE CALL FROM ROGER MICHIE
There still seems to be some confusion about the 6th of
December. Apparently Mr. Smedley has indicated to the other
people that they would not be able to use the Mandella
Rooms.
I said I could not understand t h i s .
that I had been told.
I repeated
Roger Michie said it was perfectly
clear that I could use the Council Chambers.
never been any suggestion that I should'nt.
There had
That my
suggestion of limiting our numbers to say 200 was entirely
reasonable.
He would sort it out.
I also took the oppoprtunity of pointing out that we would
have to have assistance at the Town Hall with the payments
of witnesses, but I understood that Sue and Mr. Draycott
were discussing this.
I also pointed out that it would be
difficult to release the Jury for just one day, say on the
6th of December and not pay them, and this could well be a
substantial sum of money.
I was very anxious that we
should'nt waste Council cash.
BACABM
\
FILE NOTE DATED 20.10.90.
LETTER FROM MR. HYLAND, DIRECTOR
OF H.S.E._______________________________________________
After exchange of pleasantries we spent a few minutes
talking about some H.S.E. matters in particular we talked
about pressure for Manslaughter verdicts from various
pressure groups, works accidents.
Mr. Hyland's view seemed
to coincide with mine namely, that there had to be some
very clear evidence of recklessness before one could even
contemplate it.
Mere minor breaches of standards in
themselves didnt really go far enough but one had to look
at what people were trying to do.
Were they totally
‘
had they perhaps
>-■adognaf p?-.
We spent a few minutes discussing various aspects of
Hillsborough.
I confirmed that I would like Dr. Nicholson
to give evidence plus or minus anybody else whom he could
advise.
This obviously was acceptable.
problems with regard to the licensing.
We discussed the
He explained to me
that on the whole the H.S.E. were not keen on licensing.
They did licence Nuclear Establishments but they had a very
high powered Inspectorate solely devoted to that.
They
also licence one or two other things like petroleum storage
Lh
fcfeert had something to do with asbestos* ouad said these were
inherited or forced on them but he could see that one of
the problems with licencing is that people may take the
view that if a licencing authority carries out inspections
BACABG
-
2
-
etc., that the premises are in fact safe.
Not only that
people who attend take that view but obviously other
people who are connected with the running of the show.
I
drew his attention to the Home Office instruction which in
effect said that the licensing was'nt intended to abrogate
the occupiers responsibility.
We then turned to Rule 23 of the Coroners' Rules.
I said
that somebody had rung about this but he said he didnt know
who because he knew that this was the applicable Rule.
He
explained to me that in some respects Section 3 of the
Health & Safety at Works Act 1974 means that anything was
reportable to them other than perhaps something that
happened in the home, but they took the view that febe- oU*)
enforcement was primarily with somebody else e.g., local
authority, then the Health & Safety Executive would not get
involved.
This was exactly the same point of view as Mr.
Nattress and it was based on that point of view and the
fact that the local authority were represented, that we
have come to the conclusion in April^May time that Health &
Safety did not have to have a representative at the
Inquest. Mr. Hyland felt that this was still his view.
seemed to me that this was a reasonable /»sfrlaliation.
It
It
was a terrible waste of time and money to have their H.S.E.
people sitting in perhaps a very long Inquest to no
purpose, particularly as the local authority were
represented.
We felt that in the circumstances,
order for H.S.E.
BACABG
it was in
not to have a representative there.
We did know that the local authority in a sense were there,
and it mir§ht bo at the Inquest,
in a dual capacity i.e.,
as enforcing authority but also to answer in respect of any
complaints about the way they acted.
Mr. Hyland mentioned that the H.S.E. Annual Report would be
published in December and that there would be a reference
to Hillsborough as part of the statistical information.
I
asked him if he would be kind enough to let me have a copy
of the relevant bit in case this was raised or mentioned.
BACABG
s$b4ha#~>
12th Oct obe r
90
SLP/JT.
Mr. H. Davison,
J.L.W. Harphams,
54 Queens Buildings,
Qu een Street,
Sheffield. SI.
Dear Mr. Davison,
I have be en informed that the local aut hority have n o w decid ed that w e can
use the Counc il C h a mbe r at the Town Hall and w e antici pat e c omme n c i n g there
on the 19th of N o v em ber 1990.
Can you, subject to the usual caveats about adjournments, make the n ece ssar y
ar rangements so that you can deal w i t h the t r a ns cri pti on of the evidence.
We are still c o n side rin g w h e t h e r w e should produce the copies that w i l l be
n ee ded or w h e t h e r w e should ask you to do so.
Can w e leave this poiont in
abeyance for the time being?
A l t h o u g h w e are p l a nni ng to start the Inquest p rop er on the 19th of November,
it is p ossible that w e m a y have either one or two m e e tin gs w i t h lawyers prior
to that date.
If I w e r e to w a n t to transcribe these u s i n g you r staff, I
assume that you w o u l d be in a p o s it ion to make someone available.
I w i l l of
course give you as m u c h notice as I can.
Yours
sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H.M.Coroner.
LESABV
fzJU
)*yxKjt
pj.
12th October
90
SLP/JT.
Mr. M. Rigby,
Superin ten den t Registrar,
The Regi stry Office,
Surrey Place,
Sheffield.
Dear Mr.
Rigby,
RE HI LLS B O R O U G H INQUESTS-95 DECEASED.
You m a y have read in the press that I a m resuming these Inquests on the 19th
of November.
I do not yet k n o w w h e n they w i l l be completed, but w h a t e v e r
date that w i l l be it w i l l be w e l l outside a year from the date of death.
I am anxious to avoid ne edless distress or w o r r y to b e r e a v e d families w i t h
regard to regist rat ion of the deaths, and I w o u l d be grateful if you could
please let me k n o w whether, in the circumstances of this case, arrangements
could be made that the R EV 9 9 * s are eith er sent direct to you from my s e l f and
that y ou then issue the ap propriate certificates through the post to the
relatives, or a lte rn a t i v e l y if yo u w o u l d think this was m o r e helpful, they
w o u l d be sent to the Regi str ar Genera l and they co uld be dealt w i t h from
there.
If you have any other suggestion to smooth the o r g a n i sat iona l aspects of this
ma t t e r please
Yours
sincerely,
S.L.Popper,
H.M.Coroner.
LESABX
let me know.
/t,/
»
FILE NOTE DATED 10.10.90. TELEPHONE CALL TO PROFESSOR JAMES
REASON, MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY 061 275 2 0 0 0 . _____________
I put it to him that I was lc
it the issue as to
whether or not there was any
>r information which
might assist in answering the question as to the effect
that stress produced on decision taking ability,
particularly of trained people.
I instanced the
description by Lord Justice Taylor of Mr. Duckenfield, whom
he described as 'having frozen'.
Professor Reason's initial reaction was that people did
respond to stress by some adjustment to reaction and he
went on to say the training should or would make a
difference.
I explained to him that in some respects, it did'nt matter
what the answer was i.e., for or against but the object of
my conversation was to try and ascertain whether there was
any mileage in the thought and in particular whether there
was any dowfe* to support anything which was said.
Professor Reason said that he would have to think about it
because obviously if there was no scientific basis for any
statements it would hardly be worth making them.
He wanted tt) know whether if he were involved (and he said
this was a matter of interest to him
because it was his
field) whether this would be in the context of an
adversarial system.
LESABL
I explained that althought strictly
-
2
speaking in coroner's inquiries^there would be a
substantial number of lawyers fetuswre and that as whatever he
said is likely to offend somebody, he would have to be
prepared for a very substantial^ examination.
I explained that I would have to consider the matter and
also take into accou^nt the question of cost, though I
wasn't suggesting that he should therefore not charge the
appropriate rate but it was a point that I had to bear in
mind.
He said that he would think about the matter and see
whether there was any mileage in it and that he would come
back to me in due course.
He wanted to know whether if I
felt that we wanted to pursue it I would want to see
p t
ftppggpricrbt) evidence and I said I thought so.
I gave him
our phone number so that he could ring back when he had had
a chance to think about it.
LESABL
FILE NOTE
--
'
yi
'
CLAPHAM INQUEST ; PROCEDURE
I had a long conversation with Dr. Knapman.
/ w
cUy,U. ft** 0&{<U
He agreed to send the
copies of the summing up and the Opening day.Dr. Knappiaia on
the
whole thought that I ougth to try and minimise the amount of evidence
to take nad that I should restrict it very very tightly to the
question of How.
He felt that to explore issues
which .... a possible
verdict of Unlawfully killed were outside the scope of thatword.
I
pointed out to him that position in his case was rather easy as the
incident was restricted to just one event.
He agreed but said that
he could have gone through
all the strata of British rail who had to
supervise this work but he
decided against i t .
I pointed out to him
that Michael Powers felt that he had to do the whole evidence and go
into considerable detail.
It sounded to me as if he didn't agree with
Michael on this point.
|He did make a very interesting comment that he had been to see counsel
who had advised the D.P.P. in the Clapham Disaster.
Counsel apparently
had advised him that he should not try and distinguish
between gross
negligence and recklessness but that he should address himself to
either one or the other following the quote "Lawrence" case.
Apparently
there is a lot of conflict as to what the law on manslaughter is at
the moment.
I spent a few minutes discussing with him the verdict of Lack of Care,
he didn't think it was appropriate in his case and he doubted whether
it would apply.
I asked him what he thought about the fact
Lack of Care was the ......
that if
of self neglect whether it was ever
possible to have that verdict when isolated incidents have occurred
►on the basis that self starvation might well be self neglect but missin
one or two meals could hardly be classified as such, though in one sens
they were the beginning of starvation.
He thought that that might well
be right.
I thought about what Dr. Knapman said regarding ......... the inquests
but I didn't really feel that it was possible.
I telephoned Dr. Halle
and made arrangements for cover and then took the opportunity
discussing this issue with him.
practical to try and tracate it.
of
Dr, Halle felt that it really wasn't
Having spoken to Dr. Halle I also
had a word with my former deputy David Hinchliff.
He similarly felt
that there wasn't really any option but to proceed and deal with the
matter fully.
two colleagues.
I felt relieved that my opinion was confirmed by these
FILE NOTE
DATED
8.10.90.
TELEPHONE
CALL FROM
STAN
BEECHEY.
He would come up on Friday to discuss some of the
statements which are being prepared.
He mentioned that he
had heard from some Consultant Engineers called
I
think who had done special studies on the steel of barrier
124A.
it.
Apparently they had a video of this.
Did we want
I said that it was highly unlikely but they should not
destroy it.
He pointed out that on Page 645 Dopcument 89 the Health &
Safety Executive indicated that 20 people per minute was
the rated throughput for the turnstiles.
I said that this
obviously a very important point because it went to the
question of whether a.
whether there had been sufficient
turnstiles or not and b. whether the assessment of
throughput had some basis.
I told him that when Caroline
went through the body file schedule she should for the time
being ignore all the relatives as it was quite likely that
I would want to call those anyway, we would then either
have to assess and make sure that they actually wanted to
come.
Stan Beechey also explained to me that Nigel Clough had in
his questionnaire said that he hadn't looked very much and
hadn't noticed very much apart from a bit of overspill.
LESABH
FILE NOTE DATED 6.10.90. TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR.
BINGHAM'S SECRETARY, CROWN COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
755866.
I asked what they did with regard to Juries who were sent
home either because of legal submissions or where somebody
fell ill and the case had to be adjourned for a few days.
She said as far as they knew they paid, because the Jury
were not free to do anything else, but she would check and
come back to me on t h i s . I explained to her that I thought
that was the correct thing to do but it would be nice to
know what the Crown Court in fact did so that we could
justify to the local authority who of course had to fund
the c o s t s .
BACACF
}
FILE NOTE DATED 3.10.90.TELEPHONE CALL TO ROGER MICHIE.
I explained to him that I had been to look at the Don
Valley.
Whilst the
wasn't ideal.
was probably acceptable, it
He said there had been a development.
Apparently the Councillors were now thinking of possibly
letting us have the Town Hall after all.
Whilst talking to him it occurred to me that if we started
up at the Town Hall and if we then found that we only had
very few people, we might be able to move back to the
Medico-Legal Centre and release the Town Hall at least
until we were ready to do the closing.
Mr. Michie.
I mentioned this to
He was going on holiday to-night but maybe
this is something which should be raised by the Chief
Executive next week.
I also suggested that he had better
find out precisely what the Don Valley would actually cost,
because my impression was that it would be more expensive
than he anticipated.
inquiries.
LESABC
He said Mr. Batley would make
s
FILE NOTE
DATED
I
\
2.10.90.
I spoke to Pauline Williams, who works for Mr. Webster or
the Chief Executive, T fin
enT'l~Q T,ThinJ«- she said she was
trying to arrange a meeting for the Chief Executive Mr.
Webster, David Purchon and myself to discuss accommodation
for the Hillsborough Inquests.
She offered me a couple of
dates Friday which was not convenient and Monday 12.15
which I said I would be able to make.
Shortly afterwards, Roger Michie phoned me.
He said he was
sorry to trouble me but Mrs. Pat Midgley, the Chair was
meeting with the Labour Group tonight and they were
discussing the question of accommodation.
He had been to
see the Don Valley Stadium and although they did have a
slight worry about the fact that it was a sports complex,
in all the circumstances, taking into account entrances
etc., they felt that it was a suitable venue, subject of
course to my approval.
They felt that it was infinitely
preferable to Furnival House, which would give a very bad
image and also not be as convenient or commodious.
were drawbacks,
There
for example it was out of town and so on.
I explained to Mr. Michie that a. I had not yet seen the
complex so it was difficult for me to comment, b. that the
case of / w
clearly indicated that it was my decision as
to where I went, but having said that I did not want to be
difficult and I was very conscious of the need to chose a
venue which would do credit to the Inquest and to the City,
and which would not cause exhorbitant cos ts .
LESAAX
I said one of
my main concerns about Don Valley was the fact that
although I had said that I was starting on the 19th of
November, I might have to adjourn, either because I was
requested by several parties or because sombody might want
to Judicially Review me or indeed there may be other
factors.
I was worried that if we had to adjourn the
stadium and not resume within a reasonable time, it would
no longer be available, and all the capital ingoing costs
would be totally wasted.
House.
This was less likely at Furnival
Mr. Michie said that might well be true but the
cost of going into Furnival House would be considerably
greater and on balance they thought that the stadium would
probably be better.
I said so long as it was clearly
understood, that this was a possibility , I would be
looking at it on Wednesday and I would
certainly want to
be as co-operative as I possibly could if I thought it was
alright and if the Council were happy with it, well then
clearly that was a very acceptable solution.
LESAAX
FILE NOTE
DICTATED
2.10.90.
I spoke with Sue Harper on the 1st.
She had seen the
memorandum prepared by John Batley. She wasn't entirely
happy with it because it did seem as if it was a foregone
conclusion that we would be going to Don Valley whereas I
hadn't even seen it.
She was also concerned about the
possible loss of cash if for some reason we had to adjourn
and couldn't resume at that location.
She was also concerned about the question of ordering.
She explained to me that there were technical problems that
whilst I could pass invoices generally speaking, to place
an order was accepting a financial commitment.
She thought
that if the Council were not prepared to give me an
jk
indemnity if I were to place an order which^doubted whether
they would bearing in mind it hadn't been through
Committee, then another way of getting round this would be
to say that they should formally authorise me to sign
orders with an appropriate limit of commitment, then orders
could be signed on their headed paper and would be the
responsibility of the Council.
I thought that was a very
useful bit of information.
I explained to her about the Roach case and the position
that Coroners were in with regard to the purchase of goods
and services, i.e., they
the expenditure and then were
refunded by the local authority.
We discussed other possible alternatives and Sue mentioned
that she had spoken to the people at the Cutlers Hall.
LESAAZ
and they could almost have made it but they have got just
two or three functions which could intervene.
I asked her
to have another go at them, find out exactly when the
premises would not be available and also the cost so that
we could reconsider it because if it was really only just a
couple of functions, it might be possible to just adjourn
the Inquests for those days provided of course we could
leave our things there.
She said she would come to
Sheffield a bit early on Wednesday and have a look round as
this was difficult to do these things on the phone.
LESAAZ
FILE NOTE
D A T E D 2.10.90.
I rang the Coroner's Court in London.
and in hospital in Italy.
Dr. Chambers is ill
I asked them if they could
please find the transcript of the Roach case and send it to
me, a copy of it as soon as possible, if I needed it.
said they would do their best.
LESAAY
They
HALCROW
Sir William Halcrow & P artners Ltd
Vineyard House, 44 Brook G'een
?London W6 7BY, England
Telephone 071-602 7282
International Telephone •<- 44 71 602 7282
Telex 916148 HalcroG
Fax 071-603 0095
International Fax +44 71 603 0095
Consulting Engineers
And at
Burderop Park, Swindon,
Wiltshire SN4 0QD, England
Telephone (0793) 812479
Elrond Engineering Ltd
4 Highfield Road
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 3ED
FOR THE ATTENTION OF MR N BURNE
1 October 1990
Our ref
TL/SWH/11
Your ref
Dear Mr B u m e
HILLSBOROUGH
Thank you for your letter dated 19 September concerning copies of
videos. West Midlands Police have confirmed that, following the
DPP s decision, they do not at present require a copy of the video
of the metallurgical testing on barrier 124A in relation to a
criminal prosecution. However there is a possibility that it may be
required for the Coroner’s Inquest scheduled to start on 19 November
1990.
I have explained that you were coordinating the video copying
and to avoid unnecessary expense they will contact you nearer the
date of the inquest if they need a copy of the video.
Yours sincerely
Weaver
irector
c.c.
Detective Chief Supt Foster
Hillsborough Inquiry Team
West Midlands Police
Nechells Green Police Stati< in
Fowler Street
Birmingham
B7 5DA
Director*
R W Rothwell MA FICE
(Chairman)
A R Kopec FICE
(C hief Executive)
T D Casey MA FICE
A C CadwaHader BA
(Secretary)
M S Fletcher MBE MSc FICE
D O Uoyd BSc FICE
D Buckley FICE
H G Johnson BSc FICE
D J Pollock PhD MICE
R S Gray FICE
D S Kennedy BSc FICE
C J Kirkland FICE
M R Stewart FICE FIHE
J L Beaver FICE
P A S Ferguson MASM MICE
C A Fleming PhD MICE
G D HMier BSc FICE
J G May FICE
R J Pannett MICE
1C Price FICE
N A Trenter MSc MIGEOL
J Weaver PhD FICE
VM Scott BSc FICE
T P Walters BSc FICE
J P Wood BSc FICE
J Ahmed BSc FIE
R N Craig BSc MICE
E P Evans MA FICE
C T K Heptinstall BSc FICE
A J Madden PhD MICE
Consultants
J C Thome BSc FICE
P S Godfrey BSc MICE
1C Millar BSc MICE
C P Barnard BSc MIPM
P JenKin BE MICE
B Walton MICE
A K AHum FICE FIWEM
DH Beasley MA MICE
P G Gammie BA FCA
J D Lawson MA FICE
Sir Alan Muir Wood FRS FEng FICE
N J Cochrane DSc(Eng) FICE
R S Baxter F Eng FICE
C L Clarke MA FICE
V JW H oadO B E BSc FICE
Registered in England No 1722541
Registered Office
Vineyard House, 44 Brook Green,
London W6 7BY
FILE NOTE 29.9.90
Telephone conversation with Sue Harper.
She confirmed substancially
what Mervyn had said about in the file note of 28.9.90. She felt
that the problem was not with the Officers but that they were in
difficulty with regard to Council regulations. She though it would
be wise to clarify matters.
I said that I was going to write a letter
to the Chief Executive.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE FIRE AND CIVIL DEFENCE AUTHORITY
I
South Yorkshire County Fire
H. E. Wright, M.l. FireE., F.B.I.M.
Chief Fire Officer
Divisional Commander
Our Ref:
f
K.L.Mettam, J.P. Grad I Fire E.
W4125/JI/PD
This matter is being dealt with by
%AA
West Division Headquarters
Wellington Street,
n
Sheffield,
South Yorkshire S1 3FG
Telephone: Sheffield
STD (0742) 727202
Your Ref:
Station Officer Ibbotson
Date: 28. 9.90
358
Ext. No. .
Sue Harper
Principal Administration Officer
West Midlands Police
PO Box 52
Colmore Circus
Birmingham
B4 6NQ
Dear Madam
Hillsborough Disaster Enquiry
Medico Legal Centre, Watery Street, SHEFFIELD
Further to a recent meeting between Station Officer Ibbotson and
yourself at the above premises.
I can confirm that this Authority
has no objections to the following temporary alterations to the
coroners court
1
A witness box containing ten seats to be removed, and a
further three rows of ten seats per row provided to the front
of the current public seating area.
2
The three new rows should be provided with a 1 metre wide
aisle in the middle and the seats fastened together in groups
of five.
These alterations will effectively increase the capacity of the
coroners court from 70 to 90, the existing exits are adequate to
cope with this increase. The new capacity figure must be
considered an absolute maximum due to the size of the room.
If you require any further information please do not hesitate to
contact the officer dealing with this matter.
Yours faithfully
Divisional commander
cc
The Coroner ^
Dr S L Popper
Medico Legal Centre
Watery Street
SHEFFIELD
All communications to be addressed to the Divisional Commander.
t
t
VEST MIDLANDS POLICE
HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER - RESUMED INQUESTS
Meeting with representatives of South Yorkshire Police Authority,
Sheffield City Council and West Midlands Police.
Monday 24 September 2.30 pm
Medico Legal Centre, Watery Street, Sheffield
A G E N D A
1.
Introduction
2.
Venue
2.1
Medico Legal Centre
Appendix ’A ’ refers
2.2
Alternative Venues
Appendix ’B ’ refers
3.
Associated Costs
Appendix ’C ’ refers
4.
Appointment of Liaison Officers
5.
Press and Publicity
6.
Any Other Business
APPENDIX ’A ’
HILLSBOROUGH INOTJTRY
NOTE FOR FILE
Monday 17 September 1990 1530 hours
I attended the Medico Legal Centre in Sheffield for a meeting with Station
Officer Ibbotson, South Yorkshire Fire Service.
I asked Mr Ibbotson for advice on seating arrangements in the court room
at the Medico Legal Centre. He confirmed the present fire certificate
allowed for safe evacuation of all personnel seated in the court room ie
40
10
10
4
6_
in the fixed tier seating
in moveable seating to the left
jury seats
legal representatives
other
70
total
i asked if the fire certificate could be extended to cover additional
personnel if the side seating was re-arranged. Mr Ibbotson confirmed that
an additional 3 rows of 10 chairs could be added leaving 2 side aisles and
an aisle between the fixed seating and additional rows.
To achieve this additional seating, 1 fixed unit of 10 chairs would have
to be removed leaving a total capacity for 90 people.
PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
APPENDIX ’B ’
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE VENUES
Town Hall. Sheffield
Venue used by Lord Justice Taylor.
Leader of the Authority not happy to release these rooms for the purposes
of the Inquests.
Memorial Hall
Already booked for a number dates during the potential twelve week
period.
Sheffield City Council prepared to consider re-arrangement if
strongly supported for use by the Coroner.
South Yorkshire Fire Service
Training School
Not suitable in view of Fire Service involvement in the disaster.
Thombridee Hall - Great Loneston
Although owned by Sheffield City Council, situated outside Coroner’s area
of jurisdiction.
Oakleigh Junior School
Not available from January 1990, designated for use by Sheffield City
Council.
"Drama Space"
- Burnaby Crescent
Available for use.
Coroner’s Inquest.
Would require significant expenditure to prepare for a
Marks & Spencer (Moor Street)
Vacant premises, but initial enquiries reveal that a short term lease may
be costly.
F u m i v a l House - Floors 3 and 4
Available on a short term lease.
supporting office accommodation.
Work required to prepare as a court and
)
A Z>/*0//^/.
2.0
■ / T O / L
H"2*- ■'
■:
•,
'
£
■
T S
*-j
tt--- c: = -
21
Taio
(4-500)
/ sCi MM*~l
->*£'<:>v>r
.A f.yC •?..&
■S&fV/LS<
'I*'.At, S
;
-itAJC— A.
c5 “ £
C
O
/V
2D
A TV
-
—.
E
-r
r-c
V:Vj,,,
) ■
' ■ - '‘ v:-v'^ 33 0 f4535)
i'0";\3S
2 35
C4-S30
:;t'C452g)iSl
> .(4î0)2i4
^23fo(4S3>Z)
2\
(+529)
/ .<■•>'••
7 // /
O
p
* J - -A 7 T
233
r
T £ A Room"
0 5 i(4 5 2 0 )k
051
(4-54-!);;.

the document

Transcription

Similar documents

2009 Women`s Football Academy RSVP Form

ITEM MOT 00-05141 Ammunition Purchase from Kiesler Police

Khalil Abd El

Sliema Wanderers Football Youth Nursery - Malta

Welcome to Chaparral High School Puma Football Summer Camp

9-1-1 Emergency - Toronto Police Service

O`Neills.com Leinster GAA Coaching Conference

Winter 2014 - Crofton Academy

most wanted... - Tulsa Police Department