The Stuart-Smith Scrutiny

¶1.214 On 30 June 1997, accompanied by Merseyside MPs, over 40 Hillsborough families met the Labour Government Home Secretary, Jack Straw, at Westminster. The Home Secretary expressed concern about 'whether the full facts have emerged' regarding the disaster. He acknowledged that families' grief had been 'exacerbated by their belief that there are unresolved issues which should be investigated further'.

¶1.215 Mr Straw proposed an independent judicial scrutiny of new evidence, 'to get to the bottom of this once and for all'. A senior appeal court judge, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, would consider 'further material that interested parties wished to submit'. Mr Straw was determined to 'ensure that no matter of significance is overlooked'.

¶1.216 The Scrutiny would review evidence not available to the Taylor Inquiry, the DPP, the Attorney General or the SYP Chief Constable. 'New' evidence would be 'of such significance' that it could lead to criminal prosecutions or disciplinary charges.

¶1.217 While the media erroneously portrayed the intended judicial scrutiny as a 'new inquiry', questions remained concerning the powers and discretion afforded to the judge in progressing such an unprecedented process.

¶1.218 In fact, LJ Stuart-Smith had considerable discretion. Although the terms of reference were limited, they included a broad rider: 'and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest'.

¶1.219 SYP held all information gathered by the WMP investigation into Hillsborough. This included statements, documentation, video footage and photographic evidence gathered for the criminal investigation, the Taylor Inquiry and the Coroner.

¶1.220 LJ Stuart-Smith visited SYP to view the archive. He also visited SWFC. The Hillsborough Family Support Group emphasised and presented 'new evidence' from a video technician and serious claims concerning improper conduct by the police investigators.

¶1.221 On 6 October 1997 the bereaved families met LJ Stuart-Smith in Liverpool. At a general meeting he stated that, guided by the terms of reference, he would 'look at all the information that people are now coming forward with to see whether it is fresh evidence about the disaster'. He would then 'decide whether to recommend that any fresh evidence that I find justifies a new public inquiry, new inquest or any other kind of legal proceedings or action by the authorities'.

¶1.222 It would be restricted to evidence 'not available' or 'not presented' to the Inquiries, the courts or the prosecuting authorities. It would have to 'lead somewhere and ... show that the outcome of the legal procedures that have taken place might have been different or that those responsible for instituting criminal or disciplinary proceedings might have taken different decisions'. Evidence 'broadly in line' with that already known would 'not be of much help'.

¶1.223 LJ Stuart-Smith reiterated the Taylor Inquiry findings, emphasising that the failure to close the tunnel once Gate C had been opened constituted 'a blunder of the first magnitude'. LJ Taylor, he affirmed, had been 'highly critical of the police operation' and had extended criticism to Sheffield City Council, SWFC and the civil engineers Eastwood & Partners.

¶1.224 Accepting the Taylor Report without reservation, he concluded it was 'not difficult to discern what happened'. The inquest verdicts of accidental death were 'in no way inconsistent with the deaths having been caused by negligence or breach of duty'.

¶1.225 The inquests had been subject to judicial review in the Divisional Court and were considered sound. The Scrutiny, however, would evaluate 'whether there is any fresh evidence which might show that some or all of the verdicts of accidental death should be quashed and a fresh inquest ordered'.

¶1.226 This would extend to decisions made by 'the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Complaints Authority'. If 'fresh evidence' was so significant that it would have 'caused them to reach different decisions', they would be invited to reconsider their previous decisions. LJ Stuart-Smith conceded there had been procedural problems and difficulties, particularly concerning the inquests, but he noted that families' lawyers had complied with the Coroner's arrangements for proceeding. 'No full scale investigation', stated LJ Stuart-Smith, 'will resolve these problems'.

¶1.227 LJ Stuart-Smith also noted that the SYP Chief Constable had 'paid compensation to those who were injured and the families of those who were killed on a basis of full liability'. While he had 'not seen any formal admission of liability by the police ... they have never contested that they are liable'.

¶1.228 By liability he meant 'damages for negligence or breach of duty' consistent with the Chief Constable's responsibility 'in law for the acts or omissions of his junior officers'. Such damages related to collective 'faults of the police, their negligence overall'.

¶1.229 There was 'no difference in principle between accepting liability and paying on a one hundred per cent basis than there is making a formal admission of liability... no distinction between the two'. As SYP had never contested civil liability the acceptance was implicit: 'it is a distinction without a difference'.

¶1.230 LJ Stuart-Smith met individual families and their representatives over three days, each for approximately 40 minutes. Meetings were transcribed. Some families provided written submissions prepared by the Family Support Group's solicitor.

¶1.231 Long and unexplained delays by SYP in supplying 'body files' of the deceased limited their submissions. Of the 34 families who made written submissions, 18 eventually met the judge. He also interviewed 14 witnesses, drawing on 16 others for assistance 'on various aspects' of the Scrutiny. Throughout the information-gathering period of the Scrutiny, regular telephone contact was maintained between the Scrutiny office and families. This included 'off-the-record' exchanges.

¶1.232 On 18 February 1998 the bereaved families, accompanied by Merseyside MPs, met Mr Straw before his announcement in the House of Commons of the Scrutiny's outcome. He assured the families that following LJ Stuart-Smith's 'thorough' and 'impartial' Scrutiny no new evidence had emerged of such significance that it brought into question previous decisions, judgments, rulings or inquest verdicts.

¶1.233 Soon after, addressing the House of Commons, the Home Secretary stated that the Scrutiny was the 'latest in a series of lengthy and detailed examinations' of Hillsborough. LJ Stuart-Smith's report was 'comprehensive' and went into 'immense detail to analyse and reach conclusions on each of the submissions'. All allegations and representations of 'new' evidence had been considered 'with great care'.

¶1.134 Mr Straw summarised the findings: all police video evidence had been presented to the Taylor Inquiry and to the Coroner; allegations that video evidence had been suppressed and false evidence given were unfounded; the 3.15pm cut-off had not limited the inquiry of the inquests; and there had been 'no improper attempt' by the police to 'alter the evidence' of witnesses.

¶1.235 Mr Straw concluded: 'Taking those and all other considerations into account, the overall conclusion that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reaches is that there is no basis for a further public inquiry ... for a renewed application to quash the verdict of the inquest' and 'no material that should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police disciplinary authorities'. The evidence made available to LJ Stuart-Smith had not 'added anything significant to Lord Taylor's inquiry or the inquests'.

¶1.236 Mr Straw stated that he, the Attorney General and the DPP had examined LJ Stuart-Smith's findings and had 'no reason to doubt his conclusions'. He acknowledged that the outcome would 'be deeply disappointing for the families of those who died at Hillsborough and for many who have campaigned on their behalf'.

¶1.237 He commented that he fully understood 'that those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough feel betrayed by those responsible for policing the Hillsborough football ground and for the state of the ground on that day'. He also noted that LJ Stuart-Smith accepted 'the dismay that [the families] have that no individual has personally been held to account either in a criminal court, disciplinary proceedings, or even to the extent of losing their job'.

¶1.238 Mr Straw reflected on the 'serious shortcomings in the police disciplinary system', and the inappropriateness of holding public inquiries and inquests thus repeating the inquisitorial process.

¶1.239 He considered that LJ Stuart-Smith had been 'dispassionate' and 'objective', and concluded: 'I hope that the families will recognise that the report represents – as I promised–an independent, thorough and detailed scrutiny of all the evidence that was given to the committee'.

¶1.240 The bereaved families rejected the report. A House of Commons adjournment debate followed on 8 May.