Review and alteration of police statements

¶1.241 Prior to the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny an SYP officer had revealed that in the immediate aftermath of the disaster officers had been instructed not to make entries in pocket-books but to submit handwritten recollections for word-processing.

¶1.242 The recollections had been sent to Peter Metcalf, a senior partner in Hammond Suddards, the solicitors representing SYP, who returned them to Chief Superintendent Donald Denton, with recommendations for 'review and alteration'.

¶1.243 Officers were visited by members of an internally appointed SYP team and their agreement to the alterations secured. They were expected to sign the amended recollections as formal statements.

¶1.244 The statements were then passed to the WMP investigation team and to the Taylor Inquiry who were aware of and accepted the process of review, alteration and submission. The explanation of the process, distributed throughout SYP, was 'to collate what evidence SYP officers can provide their Chief Constable in order that we can provide a suitable case, on behalf of SYP to subsequent enquiries'.

¶1.245 While the justification for the review and alteration of statements was the removal of personal opinion and conjecture, it was clear that statements were also amended to eliminate criticism of senior officers and their management of the crowd. As the extent of the process materialised, it became a focus for the Scrutiny.

¶1.246 LJ Stuart-Smith recorded that, in five weeks, over 400 recollections were processed via the solicitors. He estimated that 253 passed without comment and 60 were 'slightly' amended. Over 90 statements were recommended for alteration.

¶1.247 LJ Stuart-Smith examined 'approximately 100 amended statements where on the face of the comments by the solicitors something of substance might have been referred to'. He concluded that 74 were 'of no consequence'. From the remaining 26, 'comment and opinion' had been excluded, mainly officers' criticisms of the police operation.

¶1.248 Criticisms concerned lack of radios and poor communication, shortage of police at Leppings Lane and 'lack of organisation by senior officers in the rescue organisation'. As matters of 'comment and opinion', LJ Stuart-Smith felt that the solicitors 'could not be criticised for recommending their removal'.

¶1.249 LJ Stuart-Smith acknowledged 'that the solicitors had to exercise judgement as to whether material unhelpful to the police case should be excluded'. SYP 'perceived themselves to be on the defensive' and this was a 'perception' shared by their 'legal advisers'. It was 'understandable' that SYP should not 'give anything away'.

¶1.250 He concluded, however, that 'at least in some cases it would have been better' had some of the deletions not been made. This was 'at worst ... an error of judgement' and he did not accept that 'the solicitors were guilty of anything that could be regarded as unprofessional conduct'.

¶1.251 LJ Taylor had been 'clearly well aware that the original self-written statements [recollections] were being vetted by the solicitors and in some cases altered'. LJ Stuart-Smith was in 'no doubt' that LJ Taylor 'knew or suspected that criticisms of the police operation or conduct of their senior police officers were being excluded'.

¶1.252 In November 1997 LJ Stuart-Smith interviewed Richard Wells, who had succeeded Peter Wright as Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, noting, 'there was a tendency to remove opinion and intemperate language about senior police officers but leave in similar material about misbehaviour by Liverpool fans'. It was 'a matter of concern that there seemed to be a pattern of changing this material in this way'.

¶1.253 Interviewing former C/Supt Denton, LJ Stuart-Smith stated that there had been 'a removal of criticisms of senior officers but no corresponding removal of criticisms of the fans'. Further, he asked Mr Denton: 'some of these alterations do seem to alter the factual position ... it is not your function, is it, to change factual matters?' Mr Denton replied, 'No it isn't, and I didn't change it either, sir ... Mr Metcalf suggested all the changes. There were no changes suggested by the police at all'.