The trigger of the Hillsborough disaster? - The failings of Serial 19

For many months I've pondered how the Hillsborough Disaster really started.

Of course, I was familiar with Superintendent Marshall's request for exit gates to be opened.

And Chief Superintendent Duckenfield's failure to ensure that the gates into the tunnel leading to Pens 3 and 4 were closed.

But it seemed to me that both the Taylor Inquiry and the Hillsborough Independent Panel failed to get to the bottom of "why" the crowd built up to chaotic proportions.

In other words what was the "trigger" for the chaotic crowds at Leppings Lane.

Of course, I was familiar with the South Yorkshire Police stories of masses of drunk Liverpool fans arriving "late". But, as the Hillsborough Independent Panel pointed out, the evidence to support the South Yorkshire Police allegations was virtually non-existent.

In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the widespread South Yorkshire Police stories about late arriving fans may be false and, worse, may have been deliberately falsified.

A better explanation of the "trigger" for the Hillsborough disaster seems to me to lie in the failures of Serial 19, under the command of Inspector Gordon Sykes.

I recently wrote to Rachel Cerfontyne, Deputy Chair of the IPCC and Lord Justice Goldring about the failure of Serial 19 to comply with the primary requirement of them of the Operational Order that applied in 1989 at Hillsborough.

It seems to me that the failures of Serial 19 to understand and implement the Operational Order is a trigger of the Hillsborough disaster and may, in fact, be THE trigger of the disaster.

Here is the meat of the letter I sent to Ms. Cerfontyne and Lord Justice Goldring on 3rd March 2014.

I copied the letter to Detective Chief Inspector Foster of South Yorkshire Police. Worryingly, despite the importance of the issues raised in my letter, Detective Chief Inspector Foster refused to record a "conduct matter.".

Neither the IPCC nor Lord Justice Goldring has replied as yet.

3^rd March 2014

Rachel Cerfontyne, IPCC

Lord Justice Goldring, Hillsborough Inquests

Dear Ms. Cerfontyne and Lord Justice Goldring

The Hillsborough Disaster and its causation

The potentially pivotal role of Serial 19

Conduct matters: Inspector Gordon Sykes and others

I write to draw to your respective attentions an issue of considerable potential  importance to the Hillsborough Inquests which, so far as I’m aware, is not under investigation.

I refer to failures by Serial 19 to comply with the Operational Order.

Further, apart from a very brief mention in the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report (paragraph 1.66), the issue has not, so far as I can establish, been considered in depth by the Taylor Inquiry nor by the Hillsborough Independent Panel.

It seems to me that the actions or, more specifically, the failures to act of Serial 19 may be a pivotal issue in the correct understanding of the causation of the Hillsborough Disaster.

I do not suggest that it is the only factor in the causation of the disaster but it is, so it seems to me, an essential difference between the factors operating at the semi-finals in 1988 and 1989. Other relevant factors appear to apply roughly equally in both years.

The pivotal importance of the issue

It seems to me likely that the failure of Serial 19 to comply with the Operational Order may fairly be considered the genesis of the Hillsborough Disaster.

In paragraph 1.66 of the Hillsborough Independent Panel Report we read the following:

on approaching the ground spectators recalled being requested by police officers to show their tickets

in 1988.

In 1988 fans reported being stopped some distance outside the perimeter gates on Leppings Lane. Tickets were checked and orderly queues (as specified in the 1988 Operational Order - see page 115 re the assigned tasks for Serial 19),  

This serial will located be at Leppings Lane and ensure

that orderly queues form. They will assist other

Serials at this location as required and in the event

of vehicles, coaches, etc. arriving, supervise their

unloading.

formed, as organised by the Police.

The beneficial effect in 1988 of that approach by the Police was the creation of orderly queues and the prevention or mitigation of any crush in the turnstile area inside the perimeter gates at Leppings Lane.

In 1989 no such proactive systematic intervention in checking tickets (at some distance from the perimeter gates) was undertaken by the Police, so far as I can establish.

Had, in 1989, the Police followed the pattern described by fans in 1988 the crush near the turnstiles would, in all likelihood have been significantly less with, potentially the absence of any need to open Gates A to C to relieve that crush.

In other words, if Serial 19 had done its job the Hillsborough Disaster would very likely not have happened and many, perhaps all, of the 96 who died would have returned home that night after watching an exciting FA Cup semi-final.

Failure to comply with the Operational Order in 1989

In 1989 the Operational Order for Serial 19 (page 35 of combined Operational Order document) stated the following:

This serial will be located at Leppings Lane and

ensure that orderly queues form. They vill assist

other serials at this location as required and in

the event of vehicles, coaches, arriving, supervise

their unloading.

The wording is identical to the 1988 wording.

It can be seen that the primary task assigned to Serial 19 in the 1989 Operational Order was to “ensure that orderly queues form”.

The assigned primary task wasn’t carried out, so far as I can ascertain.

That failure by Serial 19 is, in large measure, due to a failure by Inspector Gordon Sykes. At least that’s how it appears to me.

The briefing by Inspector Gordon Sykes

In page 2 of his statement, http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000002300001.pdf, Inspector Sykes described the responsibilities of Serial 19 in these words:

serial 19 - supervised by PS  Proctor were to be used as coach

reception and supervise the fans entering the ground.

Notice that Inspector Sykes makes no mention of the primary responsibility of Serial 19 – to ensure the formation of orderly queues.

Inspector Sykes later stated (page 2 of his statement),

I told serial 19 they had a virtual roving commission as per the

match order and to generally assist wherever they were needed.

Again, there is no specific mention that the primary task of Serial 19 is to ensure that orderly queues form.

The effect of the briefing, as described in Inspector Sykes statement, is to leave the members of Serial 19 unaware of the primary task assigned in the Operational Order.

That failure of Inspector Sykes was potentially fatal, since no member of Serial 19 in 1989 had been a member of Serial 19 at the 1988 semi-final (Compare pages 35 and 115 of the combined Operational Order document).

In 1988 Sergeant Tissington had been in charge of Serial 19 but had a different role in 1989.

The fact that Superintendent Greenwood and Superintendent Marshall had in 1989 swapped roles also meant that, at Superintendent level, there was no continuity of awareness of the 1988 practice of systematically checking tickets at some distance from the perimeter gates.

The statements of members of Serial 19

I have examined the statements of each of the 11 members of Serial 19 to establish whether or not there was any awareness of the primary task of ensuring that orderly queues form.

The members of Serial 19 on 15^th April 1989 were the following:

PS 323 Proctor

PC 611 Booth

PC 2963 Singh

PC 1124 Pratt

PC 2902 Roberts

PC 3249 Jackson

PC 2333 English

PC 276 Robinson

PC 2530 Lockley

PC 3135 Burnlees (not “Burnless” as in the Operational Order)

PC 776 Glaves

Sergeant Proctor in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000001930001.pdf,

described the duties of Serial 19 in these words:

Our brief was to maintain order outside the turnstiles, to assist other Serials as required, and to search and supervise the unloading of vehicles and coaches arriving at the ground These instructions were duties which most of the Serial and myself had carried out all season.

Sergeant Proctor gave evidence to the Taylor Inquiry, http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000025990001.pdf.

The following exchange is relevant:

Q. Serial 19, I think, Sergeant Proctor? - A. That is correct,

sir.

Q. And we have heard that effectively had a roving commission

outside the gates, and we have seen its duties from the Order.

Is that right? - A. That is correct, sir.

PC Booth in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000064940001.pdf

stated,

We were instructed to carry out selective searches of fans outside the ground and to search any vehicles that were carrying Liverpool supporters and depositing them at the ground.

PC Singh in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000112440001.pdf

stated

Our duties were initially outside the ground at the Leppings Lane entrances, supervising arriving Liverpool supporters, receiving and searching arriving coaches and general public order duties.

PC Pratt in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000111090001.pdf

stated

Our duties were outside the ground and were to supervise the arrival of the Liverpool supporters in and around the turnstile area.

PC Roberts in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000008880001.pdf

makes no mention of the briefing nor his awareness of his duties.

I was unable to locate any statement by PC 3249 Jackson.

PC English in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000064980001.pdf,

mentions a briefing by Inspector Sykes but is not specific about its content.

PC Robinson in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000111550001.pdf

stated the following:

Our duties were initially outside the ground, at the Leppings Lane entrances, supervising arriving Liverpool supporters, receiving and searching arriving coaches, and general public order duties. This duty was in fact the same as I and many of my colleagues perform at most football matches at Hillsborough, has been well tried and tested, and myself and, I am sure, the other officers present, were well aware of what was required.

PC Lockley in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000064990001.pdf

described his duties in these words:

Serial 19’s duties on the day were to search incoming coaches and maintain public order outside the ground

PC Burnlees,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000000360001.pdf,

states on page 1:

Our brief was to receive fans at that. location and to maintain order and also to assist where possible; and if needed, other serials working on the turnstiles at Leppings Lane.

and (pages 1 to 2)

We were instructed to carry out selective searches of fans outside the ground and to search any vehicles that were carrying Liverpool supporters and depositing them at the ground.

PC Burnlees also gave evidene to the Taylor Inquiry,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000025990001.pdf,

On page 53 we read the following exchange:

Q. Did you regard it as being part of your job to ask people

if they had got tickets? - A. Yes, we did.

Q. Did you do that on any organised basis? That is to say,

by stopping everybody at a particular point, or on a more

casual basis? - A. It was more casual,

PC Glaves in his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/SYP000069260001.pdf,

gives the following initial description of the Serial’s duties:

The serial was involved at this time in coach reception.

In none of the statements did I find an awareness of the primary task assigned by the Operational Order – to ensure that orderly queues form.

The statements by Sergeant Proctor and PC Robinson imply that they thought they knew the duties already. At least an element of complacency seems likely on their part.

Too little too late

Late in the process some members of Serial 19 attempted to reduce the chaos in the area inside the perimeter gates.

However, those efforts strenuous though they were could not and did not correct the effect of the earlier failures to carry out the primary task assigned to Serial 19 by the Operational Order.

Possible Conduct Matters Serial 19

As indicated earlier in this letter the following were the members of Serial 19 on 15^th April 1989.

PS 323 Proctor

PC 611 Booth

PC 2963 Singh

PC 1124 Pratt

PC 2902 Roberts

PC 3249 Jackson

PC 2333 English

PC 276 Robinson

PC 2530 Lockley

PC 3135 Burnlees (not “Burnless” as in the Operational Order)

PC 776 Glaves

It seems to me that no member of Serial 19 carried out the duties of Serial 19 as specified in the Operational Order.

If the IPCC takes the view that the sole responsibility for that lies with the seriously defective briefing given by  Inspector Sykes it may be that the view is that only the conduct matter with respect to Inspector Sykes is relevant.

However, I think that each officer must bear responsibility for awareness of and  compliance with the Operational Order. Therefore I believe that a conduct matter, with respect to non-compliance with the Operational Order should be recorded against each of the 11 members of Serial 19 viz:

PS 323 Proctor

PC 611 Booth

PC 2963 Singh

PC 1124 Pratt

PC 2902 Roberts

PC 3249 Jackson

PC 2333 English

PC 276 Robinson

PC 2530 Lockley

PC 3135 Burnlees (not “Burnless” as in the Operational Order)

PC 776 Glaves

That, of course, is a matter for Chief Inspector Foster.

Refusal of entry to stewards

In his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000002300001.pdf,

Inspector Sykes states the following:

I then went back outside through Gate ' C ' , as I did so i was asked by

the gatemen on this gate for advice. They informed me that stewards

from Liverpool Football Club were seeking admission to the ground by

showing their stewards passes. Whilst the Sheffield Wednesday

stewards had allowed some access to the ground they believed tne

stewards were then collecting the passes and taking them outside for

other people to use. 1 told the stewards that if this was the case

then no more persons should be allowed access to the ground by

showing a stewards pass.

At this time there was about 30 people outside Gate ’C ’ with stewards

passes. Some of these had children with them and were trying to

gain admission. They were all refused on my advice.

I assume that there some tacit agreement that stewards at Anfield would, as some form of quid pro quo, be given free entry to Hillsborough.

Be that as it may, it is clear that some 30 adults and an unspecified number of children who had an expectation (justified or otherwise) of gaining entry to Hillsborough were, at Inspector Sykes’ instruction, denied entry to the ground.

The inevitable effect, I would suggest, is to add confused and directionless individuals to the melee developing outside the turnstiles.

I ask that a conduct matter be recorded against Inspector Sykes with respect to this matter.

“Throw her up here and we’ll fuck her”

The above are the words indicated in the Sun of 19^th April 1989.

The officer who, with minor variations in different accounts, provided those words was Inspector Gordon Sykes. No other officer heard the alleged words.

He gives one version of the story on page 8 of his statement,

http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/HOM000002300001.pdf.

He gives a slightly different version at the Joint Branch Board meeting on 19^th April 1989. See page 4 of http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/docs/TPF000000010001.pdf.

It seems that Inspector Sykes provided an inflammatory story to the Press.

I think that this should be recorded as a conduct matter.

A separate question is whether the story he provided to the press is the truth or a lie.

Given that there is no corroboration of what he allegedly heard the possibility that his story was an invention has to be given serious consideration.

Given the video evidence it may be possible to establish whether Inspector Sykes did carry a young woman as described and which other officers were present. If the alleged inflammatory remark was made the statements of those officers merits close examination in my view.

A further question is whether or not Inspector Sykes intended the inflammatory remarks placed in the media to be a smokescreen for what I believe to have been his own misconduct on 15^th April 1989 with respect to the failures of Serial 19.

If such was his intention, he was successful for some 24 years in diverting close attention from the failures of Serial 19.

Distribution

I view this letter as a public document.

I am copying it to Detective Chief Inspector Foster of South Yorkshire Police with a view to his recording one or more “conduct matters” with respect to Inspector Gordon Sykes and the members of Serial 19 as specified in Paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002.

Section 21(3) of the Police Reform Act

I wish to be treated as an “interested person” in the meaning of Section 21(3) of the Police Reform Act 2002.

I give my permission to being kept informed of progress in the investigation of this matter as specified in Section 21(3) of the Act.

Yours sincerely

(Dr) Andrew Watt

cc DCI Foster, South Yorkshire Police

Rachel Cerfontyne

IPCC

PO Box 473

Sale

M33 0BW

Lord Justice Goldring

Hillsborough Inquests

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

Hillsborough. What is the truth? IPCC report on Norman Bettison due

According to the BBC (IPCC report on Bettison Hillsborough allegations) and ITV (Hillsborough police report due) the IPCC report on the conduct of Sir Norman Bettison is due to be published today.

It will be interesting to see if it is a fudge, a cover-up or a diligent investigation.

Hillsborough: What is the truth? - Norman Bettison resignation statement in full

The Telegraph wesite has published the full text of Norman Bettison's resignation statement: Sir Norman Bettison: resignation statement in full .

For convenience I quote here the full text of Bettison's statement:

First, and foremost, the Hillsborough tragedy, 23 years ago, left 96 families bereaved and countless others injured and affected by it.

I have always felt the deepest compassion and sympathy for the families, and I recognise their longing to understand exactly what happened on that April afternoon.

I have never blamed the fans for causing the tragedy.

Secondly, I refute the report of a conversation 23 years ago. The suggestion that I would say to a passing acquaintance that I was deployed as part of a team tasked to 'concoct a false story of what happened', is both incredible and wrong.

That isn't what I was tasked to do, and I did not say that.

Thirdly, there is a due process to deal with any allegation through the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) and the criminal law.

I remain consistent in my desire to assist those enquiries to the full, both now and in the future. These processes should help to separate facts from speculation.

Fourthly, I sought to remain in post to address those allegations. It now appears that that will take some time.

The Police Authority, and some of the candidates in the forthcoming PCC elections, have made it clear that they wish me to go sooner.

I do so, not because of any allegations about the past, but because I share the view that this has become a distraction to policing in West Yorkshire now and in the future.

I have therefore agreed to retire within the statutory notice period. It has been a privilege to serve the public as a Police Officer for more than 40 years and I wish the Force and the Police Service every success for the future.

There you have it. If you believe Norman Bettison, he is totally innocent.

I suspect that I'm not alone in not believing him.

Hillsborough: What is the truth? - Unprecedented new inquests in prospect

The Home Secretary's statement to the House of Commons on 22nd October, House of Commons Hansard for 22 October 2012 (pt 0002), includes the following comments about the possibility of the Dr. Popper inquests being quashed and the nature of the potential new inquests on those who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster:

The bereaved families have long considered the original inquest to have been inadequate, and the Hillsborough independent panel has pointed to significant flaws. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has studied the panel’s report in detail and looked at the disclosed material and the previous requests for new inquests that were declined by his predecessors. He has confirmed that he will apply to the High Court for the original inquest to be quashed and a new one ordered.

Right hon. and hon. Members will know that it is for the High Court and not for Government to make the final decision, and that we must be careful not to pre-judge the Court’s consideration. Should the Court agree a new inquest, I have asked the chairman of the Hillsborough independent panel, the Bishop of Liverpool, to work with the new chief coroner to ensure that arrangements are put in place in which the families are central, and to ensure that the new inquest is run in a way that reflects the dignity and respect that the families have themselves so consistently demonstrated. I have also asked the Bishop of Liverpool to act as my adviser more generally on Hillsborough-related matters, and he has agreed to do so.

The second quoted paragraph indicates that the process of agreeing what nature a prospective new inquest (more precisely multiple inquests) may have is likely to be unprecedented.

Having a person who is not an "interested person" have a role in the parameters of an inquest is, so far as I'm aware, unprecedented.

The proposed arrangment seems broadly sensible but what is its basis in Law?

It may, also, be the first time that the recently appointed Chief Coroner, Judge Peter Thornton, has taken an active role in defining the parameters of an inquest.

Given that the office of Chief Coroner has been somewhat emasculated I'm not entirely clear on the basis in Law of the role proposed by the Home Secretary.

Further, the question of whether the Home Secretary has powers to "ensure" that an inquest is conducted in any particular way is a moot point, I think.

The wider question of how any such precedents may apply to other inquests also needs to be considered.

If the Hillsborough families are, hypothetically, to have their expenses paid why should that not also apply to other families in respect of the death of their loved one?

Hillsborough: What is the truth? - Sir Norman Bettison resigns

According to Sky News, Hillsborough Police Chief Bettison Quits, Sir Norman Bettison has resigned as Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police with immediate effect.

Councillor Les Carter, vice-chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Authority is quoted as saying:

I can confirm that the Police Authority has accepted Sir Norman’s resignation with immediate effect. The media attention and Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation is proving to be a huge distraction for the force, at a time when it is trying to maintain performance and make savings of £100m. We therefore believe that his decision is in the best interest of the communities of West Yorkshire

I had been planning to write to West Yorkshire Police Authority with evidence indicating that Bettison had lied to the Merseyside Police Authority when he was Chief Constable designate of Merseyside Police.

Bettison continues to deny any wrongdoing:

I have never blamed the fans for causing the tragedy

Sky News also indicates that Bettison refuted reports of a conversation it was claimed he had in the months after the tragedy.

The suggestion that I would say to a passing acquaintance that I was deployed as part of a team tasked to ‘concoct a false story of what happened’, is both incredible and wrong. That isn’t what I was tasked to do, and I did not say that.

The BBC website is also carrying the story about Bettison's resignation: Sir Norman Bettison resigns from West Yorkshire Police.

I believe that Mr. Bettison's resignation has the effect, given that he resigns with immediate effect, of nullifying any Police disciplinary action against him.

He is, as I understand it, only subject to any criminal charges that might be made against him in due course.

The tactical advantages to Mr. Bettison of an immediate resignation are clear.

Hillsborough: The potential role of the National Crime Agency

On 22nd October 2012, in her statement to the House of Commons, the Home Secretary Teresa May set out the potential role of the National Crime Agency in relation to investigating the Hillsborough cover-up in these words:

Moving on to deal with further investigations, the Director of Public Prosecutions has initiated a review of the panel’s findings. His review will inform a decision as to whether there are grounds to pursue prosecution of any of the parties identified in the report. If the DPP decides that further investigation is necessary, I will ensure that this can be carried out swiftly and thoroughly. In the case of police officers, it is likely that the IPCC will pick up the investigative role. If the DPP finds that a broader investigation is necessary, we will appoint a senior experienced investigator—entirely independent and unconnected to these events—to operate an investigation team within the new National Crime Agency.

See House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 October 2012 (pt 0002).

The Home Secretary did not make it clear that the existence of the National Crime Agency is subject to Parliamentary process. In other words, the National Crime Agency does not currently exist.

The Crime and Courts Bill which establishes the National Crime Agency is not likely to become Law until Spring 2013. And, it is hoped, the National Crime Agency will be operational by Autumn 2013.

Investigation of individuals and agencies other than the Police looks likely to be a disappointingly distant prospect, even if one assumes that the Director of Prosecutions is competent and diligent in identifying those who may have committed criminal offences.

Given the failures of the Crown Prosecution Service in earlier phases of the Hillsborough cover-up I have serious doubts about how close to the truth the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service will seek to come.

The purpose of the Hillsborough: What is the Truth? blog

I've spent many hours over the last few weeks looking at the Hillsborough Independent Panel report and some of the very many documents which were made public at the same time.

I am struck by the parallels with, for example, the cover-up of the suspicious death of David Kelly.

Among the parallels are the following:

1. Persistent seeming dishonesty within the relevant Police forces - South Yorkshire Police and West Midlands Police in the case of Hillsborough, Thames Valley Police in the case of the death of David Kelly
2. Questionable actions or inaction by the Coroner - Dr. Stefan Popper in the case of Hillsborough, Mr. Nicholas Gardiner and Mr. Darren Salter in the case of David Kelly
3. A naive reliance on questionable and/or dishonest evidence of pathologists - nine pathologists in the case of Hillsborough, Dr. Nicholas Hunt and Dr. Richard Shepherd in the case of David Kelly
4. A naive reliance on the imagined integrity and ability to find the truth of the judiciary - Lord Justice Taylor, Lord Justice McCowan, Mr. Justice Hooper and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in the case of Hillsborough and Lord Hutton in the case of David Kelly
5. A naive reliance on the imagined integrity and/or competence of the Crown Prosecution Service.
6. A naive reliance on the imagined integrity and competence of the Attorney General and his office - Dominic Grieve in the case of David Kelly

There is no doubt in my mind that in both the cases of Hillsborough and David Kelly that there has been a sustained, premeditated conspiracy on the part of many Police officers.

But, it seems to me, the criminal conspiracy must go wider.

Which of the players were active conspirators?

Which were culpable by their silence?

Which were innocent or semi-innocent bystanders?

In this blog I hope to have time to explore some of those important questions.

If time and energy allow I hope to write a book provisionally entitled "Hillsborough: What is the truth?".

I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel has revealed some of the truth relating to the Hillsborough disaster but not all. More, anon, of the specific issues where I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel report may have missed substantive and more minor aspects of the truth.