The Taylor Interim Report

¶1.120 On 1 August 1989, LJ Taylor published his Interim Report making 43 recommendations. He concluded that the immediate cause of the disaster was the failure to close access to the central pens once Gate C had been opened, leading to overcrowding, injury and deaths. At the time of Gate C's opening the central pens were beyond capacity but there was a failure to recognise the problem and control further entry to each pen.

¶1.121 The pressure in pen 3 led to the collapse of the barrier, and there followed a 'sluggish reaction and response' by the police. Poor police leadership, including the failure to respond to the urgency of the unfolding disaster, alongside the restricted size and small number of perimeter fence gates, hindered the rescue of those dying on the terraces.

¶1.122 The Report was clear that the dangerous congestion at the turnstiles should have been anticipated and planned for accordingly, that unless fans arrived steadily over a period of time the turnstiles would not cope and congestion would be inevitable.

¶1.123 Neither the Operational Order nor the policing strategy on the day had considered the possibility and consequences of heavy congestion at the turnstiles in the period before kick-off. The Report noted that some turnstiles malfunctioned and that the signage and ticketing were inadequate.

¶1.124 LJ Taylor noted that a minority of fans had been drinking but concluded that they had not caused the congestion, nor had 'hooliganism' played any part in the disaster. The 'fear of hooliganism', however, had influenced 'the strategy of the police', resulting in an 'imbalance between the need to quell a minority of troublemakers and the need to secure the safety and comfort of the majority'. The 'real cause' of the disaster, LJ Taylor concluded, was 'overcrowding' and the 'main reason' was 'the failure of police control'.

¶1.125 LJ Taylor directed severe criticism towards senior officers. He emphasised that once C/Supt Duckenfield acceded to Supt Marshall's request to open Gate C, he should have ordered the closing of the tunnel. It constituted 'a blunder of the first magnitude'.

¶1.126 C/Supt Duckenfield's 'capacity to take decisions and give orders seemed to collapse' and 'he failed to give necessary consequential orders or to exert any control when the disaster occurred'. Further, he 'gave Mr Kelly [Chief Executive of the FA] and others to think that there had been an inrush due to fans forcing open a gate'. LJ Taylor continued: 'This was not only untruthful' but it 'set off a widely reported allegation against the supporters which caused grave offence and distress'.

¶1.127 The 'reluctance [of C/Supt Duckenfield] to tell the truth ... did not require that he [Mr Kelly] be told a falsehood'. The 'likeliest explanation' for C/Supt Duckenfield's 'lack of candour' was that he 'simply could not face the enormity of the decision to open the gates and all that flowed therefrom'.

¶1.128 It was LJ Taylor's conclusion that C/Supt Duckenfield's failure to reflect on the consequences of his decision to open Gate C 'would explain what he said to Mr Kelly, what he did not say to Mr Jackson [Assistant Chief Constable (Operations), SYP], his aversion to addressing the crowd and his failure to take effective control of the disaster situation. He froze'.

¶1.129 LJ Taylor did not restrict criticisms of SYP to C/Supt Duckenfield. It was 'a matter of regret' that 'at the hearing, and in their submissions' senior officers 'were not prepared to concede they were in any respect at fault in what occurred'. He noted: 'the police case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk, and to blame the Club for failing to monitor the pens'. His assessment was unequivocal: 'Such an unrealistic approach gives cause for anxiety... It would have been more seemly and encouraging for the future if responsibility had been faced'.

¶1.130 Sixty-five police officers gave evidence to the Inquiry and LJ Taylor considered the 'quality of their evidence' was 'in inverse proportion to their rank'. Some junior officers were 'alert, intelligent and open' witnesses and as the disaster was happening 'many... strove heroically in ghastly circumstances'. Most senior officers, however, 'were defensive and evasive witnesses ... neither their handling of problems on the day nor their account of it in evidence' demonstrated the 'qualities of leadership expected of their rank'.

¶1.131 LJ Taylor expressed further concern that the police had initiated a vilification campaign directed towards Liverpool fans. Widely published allegations had included drunken fans urinating on police officers and on the bodies of the dead and stealing from the dead.

¶1.132 He found 'not a single witness' to support 'any of those allegations although every opportunity was afforded for any of the represented parties to have any witness called ... those who made them, and those who disseminated them, would have done better to hold their peace'.

¶1.133 LJ Taylor also considered the role and performance of other agencies. He accepted the FA's decision to hire Hillsborough as a suitable venue because the 1988 FA Cup Semi-Final 'had been considered a successfully managed event'. Yet he acknowledged that the FA should have been 'more sensitive and responsive to reasonable representations'.

¶1.134 Significantly, the FA 'did not consider in any depth whether it [Hillsborough] was suitable for a high risk match with an attendance of 54,000 requiring to be segregated, all of whom were, in effect, among supporters lacking week in week out knowledge of the ground'. The choice of venue, however, was not 'causative of the disaster' and he did not accept that the Leppings Lane terrace 'was incapable of being successfully policed'.

¶1.135 He found that SWFC had 'adopted a responsible and conscientious approach to its responsibilities', and had retained a consultant engineer, Dr Eastwood. Yet, he was concerned about a 'number of respects in which failure by the Club contributed to this disaster'.

¶1.136 These included the condition of the 'unsatisfactory and ill-suited' Leppings Lane terrace. The Club was aware of the problems, and had attempted solutions between 1981 and 1986, but 'there remained the same numbers of turnstiles, and the same problems outside and inside them'.

¶1.137 Such alterations had affected capacity 'but no specific allowance was made for them' and both Dr Eastwood and the Club 'should have taken a more positive approach'. He noted that monitoring pens was a police responsibility, but also that, 'the Club had a duty to its visitors and the Club's officials ought to have alerted the police to the grossly uneven distribution of fans on the terraces ... the onus here was on the Club as well as on the police'.

¶1.138 He considered that the removal of a pen 3 barrier in 1986 should have brought a reduction in the pen's capacity. It also created pressure inside the pen, pushing 'fans straight down by the radial fence to the lowest line of barriers'. Consequently the 'pressure diagonally from the tunnel mouth' down to the front barrier which collapsed was 'unbroken by any intervening barrier'.

¶1.139 In evidence, Dr Eastwood had accepted that the barrier's removal was a probable cause of the front barrier's collapse. LJ Taylor concluded that its removal, following the advice of Dr Eastwood and Sheffield City Council's Safety of Sports Grounds Advisory Group, 'was misguided'.

¶1.140 He also criticised the Club for breaches of national guidelines, poor sign-posting and the 'unhelpful format' of the tickets. This was particularly pertinent given the confusion and difficulties experienced by fans unfamiliar with the venue, its layout and established routines.

¶1.141 Sheffield City Council had a statutory duty to issue, monitor and revise the stadium's safety certificate. LJ Taylor found that SWFC and the Council failed in their respective duties as the safety certificate 'took no account of the 1981 and 1985 alterations to the ground'. In fact, the certificate in force was issued in 1979 and had not been updated. There was no FA procedure for checking its validity. In conclusion, LJ Taylor considered the 'performance by the City Council of its duties in regard to the Safety Certificate ... inefficient and dilatory'.

¶1.142 In marked contrast to his criticisms of the Club, the consultant engineer, the Sheffield City Council Advisory Group and the FA, LJ Taylor considered 'no valid criticism' could be directed towards the St John Ambulance, SYMAS or the Fire Service.

¶1.143 He criticised a Liverpool doctor who had attended the dead and injured for his public condemnation of SYMAS for the slow arrival of ambulances, insufficient equipment and lack of triage.¹¹ Triage is the prioritisation of casualties so that those with life-threatening injuries are attended to ahead of those with lesser injuries and those already beyond help. Another doctor was also criticised for claiming that defibrillators should have been deployed. LJ Taylor relied on expert evidence that deploying defibrillators 'with people milling about would have been highly dangerous owing to the risk of injury from the electric charge'.

¶1.144 The emergency services had 'responded promptly when alerted', bringing 'appropriate equipment' and efficient personal intervention. Vehicles outside the gymnasium had hindered the ambulance operation. In refuting the claim that ambulances did not arrive quickly, LJ Taylor noted that the Major Accident Vehicle did not arrive until 3.45pm. LJ Taylor also concluded that there had not been a failure in triage, which 'ensur[es] that those most likely to benefit from treatment are seen first'.

¶1.145 While the gymnasium's use as an 'emergency area', and later as a temporary mortuary, was mentioned in the Report, there was no evaluation of its adequacy or operational effectiveness. LJ Taylor commented that there was 'intense distress amongst the injured and the bereaved; relatives were reluctant to be parted from the dead and sought to revive them ... there were scuffles. Some of these involved those who were the worse for drink'. Clearly, LJ Taylor did not consider the immediate aftermath to be part of his remit.