Police are following a Hillsborough survivor - IOPC

An extensive inquiry into police conduct connected to the Hillsborough disaster has uncovered evidence that officers monitored a relative of one of the victims.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) reviewed 27 complaints filed by 25 individuals tied to the 1989 tragedy, many of which alleged police surveillance. According to the report released on Tuesday, 12 officers would have faced gross misconduct proceedings had they still been active in service.

The investigation concluded that South Yorkshire Police (SYP) failed to adequately prepare for the match where 97 people lost their lives and subsequently attempted to shift responsibility onto supporters in the years that followed. Among the implicated officers were thenChief Constable Peter Wright and match commander Chief Inspector David Duckenfield.

For decades, families and campaigners had accused police of monitoring them, often citing unusual clicking noises on phone calls. All 25 complainants believed their communications had been intercepted, and 16 said they suspected other forms of surveillance, including being followed.

While many of the claims lacked sufficient detail to pursue, one complaint was substantiated. The report confirmed that a family member had been openly followed by police officers for nearly a week and had even spoken with them at least once.

The report did not disclose which police force was involved in that incident. Another upheld complaint concerned West Midlands Police (WMP), whose officers acted in a manner described as unnecessarily intimidating when collecting a document from a family member. WMP had been tasked with reviewing SYPs handling of the disaster, but the IOPC found the force had shown bias in favour of its counterparts and against supporters.

The IOPC contacted all relevant police forces seeking any records of phone monitoring, but none were located. It noted that this could indicate either that no surveillance occurred or that any records were destroyed in accordance with retention policies.

The report also reviewed several burglaries in Merseyside, including incidents at the Hillsborough Centre, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC) shop, and the home of an HJC member. Five complaints suggested possible police involvement, partly because sensitive documents were takenmaterial that would have been useful only to law enforcement.

The watchdog said its request for burglary records received a slow initial response from Merseyside Police and required escalation. Once provided, the records raised concerns: one log merged two separate burglaries, and no information was recorded about incidents at the campaigners home.

Merseyside Police stated that all available information had ultimately been supplied and that procedures have since been reinforced. The IOPC, however, found no evidence linking police to the burglaries, noting that one witness reported seeing youths involved.

Overall, the IOPC concluded that there were deep systemic failures by police and persistent efforts to assign blame to fans. Although misconduct hearings can now be brought against former officers under laws introduced in 2017, these provisions do not apply retroactively.

Speaking after the reports release, Charlotte Hennessywhose father James died at Hillsboroughsaid: We may never fully uncover the scale of South Yorkshire Polices deception, but it is undeniable that they neglected their responsibilities and later sought to fault the victims.

Author: Connor Blake