Hillsborough: the tangled web

© Public Partners 2006 1|

HillsboroughThe Tangled Web

The National ArchivesTuesday 16th April 2013

Christine GiffordHillsborough Independent Panel

© Public Partners 2006

April 15th 1989FA Cup Semi Final

Liverpool FC v Nottingham Forest FCat

Hillsborough SheffieldThe home of Sheffield Wednesday FC


Hillsborough – the Tangled Web

Attendance: over 54000

Kick Off – 3.00 pm

Game stopped by referee at 3.06 pm

96 people dead or dying by 3.15 pm•400 treated in a number of hospitals•Spectators and members of the emergency services traumatised some dying prematurely•Families lives changed forever


How and why did this terrible disaster happen?

•Not something we are going to consider today

•We are however going to look at

– The search for the truth 1989 - 2009– The establishment of the Hillsborough Independent Panel– The framework and processes within which the Panel worked– The construction of the Report of the Hillsborough Independent

Panel– The context of the publication of the Report – for the future.



The search for the truth 1989 – 2009:-

Immediate aftermath•Internal inquiry established on the day by South Yorkshire Police•Criminal Inquiry led by West Midlands Police and fed into

– Home Office Inquiry – The Taylor Report– Director of Public Prosecutions– The legal responsibilities of the South Yorkshire Coroner

Three distinct lines of inquiry Criminal – Public - Coronial



Hillsborough – The Tangled Web

Home Office•Interim report published August 1989•Final Report of Lord Justice Taylor published January 1990

Director of Public Prosecutions•Decision announced that there would be no criminal prosecutions August 1990

Inquests•Held 18th April 1989 – 28th March 1991•Verdict – Accidental Death


Hillsborough – The Tanged Web

Independent Police Complaints Commission•Directed that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and Superintendent Murray for neglect of duty•Duckenfield retired on medical grounds; January 1992 decided not to pursue Murray alone

Judicial Review of Inquest Decision • November 1993•No evidence to support new inquests



Civil Litigation• Compensation Hearings• Test cases for Pre – death trauma and secondary trauma• Appeals to the House of Lords

Stewart Smith Judicial Scrutiny• Ordered by Home Secretary Jack Straw• To look at evidence previously unavailable• Report February 1998


Hillsborough – the Tangled WebHillsborough Family Support Group; Justice Campaign and the role of Anne Williams•Formed in aftermath of the disaster•HFSG brought private prosecution of manslaughter against Duckenfield and Murray June 2000•Murray acquitted•Jury undecided on Duckenfield•Application for a retrial refusedDemonstration at Hillsborough Memorial Service April 2009•Andy Burnham, Health Secretary and Liverpool MP•Hillsborough Family Support Group met with Home Secretary•January 2010 – Appointment of Hillsborough Independent Panel



Interested Parties

•The Families, HFSG, Justice Campaign, Anne Williams•Organisations involved in the arrangements for the match•Spectators not attached to any group•Organisations and individuals with roles and responsbilities in the aftermath•The general public


Hillsborough – The Tanged Web

Hillsborough Independent Panel

•Panel not Public Inquiry•Wide ranging terms of reference•Limited to ‘the historical truth’.•No powers to compel disclosure•No recommendations for further action

Key Task – to add to public understanding of what happened through discovery and examination of relevant documents


PanelChair – The Rt Rev James Jones – Bishop of LiverpoolMembers•Raju Bhatt•Christine Gifford•Katy Jones•Bill Kirkup CBE•Paul Leighton CBE, QPM•Prof Phil Scraton•Peter Sissons•Sarah Tyacke CB

Hillsborough- The Tangled Web



Focus of the Panel

•Principle of ‘Families First’•Discovery of relevant documents•Leave no stone unturned•Negotiation over access and disclosure•Importance of the Historical Truth•Content of the report must be evidenced by direct reference to documentation which had been seen by Panel



Framework and Processes within which Panel worked.

•Identification of potential information holders– Not all public sector – FOI

•Was information ever held and did it still exist?– Most important organisations easily identifiable– Others the subject of considerable detective work!

•If it still existed what format was it in?– Access to paper records


Hillsborough – The Tangled WebMajor Contributing Organisations and Individuals•The Groups representing the families•South Yorkshire Police•Sheffield City Council•Yorkshire Ambulance Service•The Home Office•The Department for Culture Media and Sport•The NHS•The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions•The Football Association•Sheffield Wednesday Football Club•Lawyers for most of the contributing organisations


Access and DisclosureMemoranda of Understanding and the Redaction Framework•Same rules for all organisations but for FOI•Overarching principle of disclosure in the public interest•For public sector organisations

– Presumption of disclosure in line with FOI– Limited opportunity for redaction

• Legal and Professional Privilege• Confidentiality and statutory prohibitions on disclosure• Information indicating the views of ministers, where release would

prejudice the convention of Cabinet collective responsibility.

•No information held by government was withheld from the Panel including full access to relevant Cabinet Minutes



Hillsborough – the Tangled WebAssumptions made within the Redaction frameworkFOI•That for public sector organisations where legal and professional privilege might have applied this would be waivedData Protection •With the agreement of the families sensitive data relating to victims would be seen by the Panel and included in the report and supporting documents where relevantInvolvement of Information Commissioner•SI to protect processing by organisations•Available for advice and assistance


Principle of parallel disclosure

•Simultaneous workstreams – Disclosure and Research Disclosure•All redactions the subject of the specific agreement of the panel and many challenged•Sensitive personal data – proper processing

Research•All material seen by Reseachers in un-redacted format

Hillsborough – The Tangled Web.


Digitisation and QA

•Huge amount of paper informationIssues relating to duplication

•Process of digitisation•Audit trail•Use of Lextranet – Merrill Corp•Access by all organisations initially in silos•Approval and QA by Panel members




The construction of the Report

•Parallel disclosure•The role of the research teams and panel members•The identification of the phases of events•All statements relating to events supported and linked to documentary evidence•Accessibility of that evidence to the reader•The construction of the website


Hillsborough – the Tangled WebHow successful were we?

•Identified a potential of 150+ organisations or individuals who might have held information•Confirmed 85 organisations or individuals who contributed relevant information•Not all public sector•Probable 450000 pages of information which might be relevant•Eventually 350000 pages digitised•Only two organisations refused to release information to the Panel.



How successful were we?

•Held to the principle of ‘Families First’•Report universally very well received•Apology on behalf of the nation by the Prime Minister•Setting aside of the Inquest verdicts – new inquests to be held.•IPCC investigation into actions of Police•Criminal investigation into other issues



Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panelhttp://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report.pdf

Christine [email protected]

www.publicpartners.org

©Public Partners 2013

Hillsborough: the tangled web

Documents

Transcript of Hillsborough: the tangled web