Hillsborough disaster survivor ‘followed by police’ | UK News

The years-long investigation into police conduct surrounding the Hillsborough disaster found evidence that police officers had followed a victim’s family member.

As part of its remit, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigated 27 complaints from 25 people with connections to the 1989 tragedy, relating to alleged police surveillance.

The report, released on Tuesday, found 12 police officers would have faced gross misconduct charges if they were still serving.

It concluded that South Yorkshire Police (SYP) failed to plan properly ahead of the stadium crush, which killed 97 people, and then tried to deflect blame on to supporters in the years that followed.

Those officers included SYP Chief Constable Peter Wright and match commander Ch Insp David Duckenfield.

Over the years, repeated allegations claimed that Hillsborough families and campaigners had been subject to police surveillance, with many reporting strange clicking sounds during phone calls.

Of the 25 complainants, all believed their phone calls had been monitored, while 16 suspected they were subjected to other forms of surveillance, such as being followed.

The report stated while many complaints were too vague to investigate effectively, one was upheld.

It stated: “The IOPC did look in detail into one specific allegation, where a family member was conspicuously followed by police officers for almost a week, and on at least one occasion, spoke to the officers directly.

“This complaint was upheld.”

The report did not identify the force involved.

Another upheld complaint involved officers from West Midlands Police (WMP) behaving in an “unnecessarily intimidating way” when sent to retrieve a document from a family member.

WMP had been instructed to investigate the actions of SYP around the Hillsborough disaster, but the IOPC found it had been “biased” against supporters and in favour of its fellow force.

The IOPC said it had written to all relevant police forces to ask for any evidence of telephone surveillance, but no records were found.

It added this could mean no police phone surveillance took place, or that records had been destroyed in line with retention rules.

In line with longstanding policy, the Home Office would not confirm or deny whether anyone had been subjected to telephone interception by the police.

However, the IOPC directed families to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which the report said has the authority to check government records on phone tapping.

The IOPC also said it investigated a number of burglaries in the Merseyside area, including two at the Hillsborough Centre and two the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC) shop.

Two further incidents occurred at the home of an HJC member.

The watchdog said it received five complaints suggesting possible police involvement, partly because documents were stolen that would only contained “information of value” to the police.

The IOPC said it had contacted Merseyside Police for records of its response to those burglaries and initially received a “disappointingly slow” reply, which had to be escalated to senior officers.

A spokesperson for the force told the : “We acknowledge the findings of the IOPC in relation to how this matter was dealt with and how it was quickly resolved following contact with the head of the Professional Standards Department.

“Due to the passage of time before the request there was a need to carry out substantial searches on force systems and all the information was provided to the IOPC as it was important that it was shared.”

When records were provided, the IOPC said there were concerns with how the burglary reports had been recorded, including one log conflating two of the incidents into one.

No information at all had been recorded about the burglaries at the home of the individual campaigner.

Merseyside Police said: “The force had recognised processes in place at the time and work has been undertaken to ensure officers adhere to those processes.”

However, the IOPC said there was no evidence of police involvement in burglaries, and said one witness report had described “youths” being responsible.

The overall report found there were “fundamental failures” by police and “concerted efforts” to blame fans.

The law was changed in 2017 so that ex-officers can still face misconduct proceedings, but it does not apply retrospectively.

In a press conference after the report was released, Charlotte Hennessy, whose father James was killed at Hillsborough, said: “We will never truly know the full extent of South Yorkshire Police force’s deception, but there is no hiding, there is no destroying, and there is no way to cover up that they failed their duties and then they sought to blame the victims.”