Hillsborough Untold: Aftermath of a disaster

by Norman Bettison

  appears to be the most egregious example of deliberate dissimulation in the history of British Policing … The shadows of this apparently disgraceful behaviour will long lie over the police service as a whole … This attempt to re-write history has echoes of the colonial cover-up of brutality by British forces under Dyer at Amritsar or against the Mau Mau in Kenya.

  I’m sure you will get the picture. In order to avoid being swallowed up by the narrative around police corruption arising from Hillsborough, it has been necessary for commentators on policing matters to expose their wounds and add increasingly rhetorical layers of condemnation to the baseline accusations.

  No one, around the time of the Hillsborough Panel Report, said that it might be better to await the outcome of an objective investigation. Not even the body that was charged with a responsibility for that investigation.

  On 12 October 2012, exactly one month after the publication of the panel’s report, Deborah Glass, Deputy Chair of the IPCC, published a document called ‘Decision in Response to the Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’. Paying tribute to the tenacity of the Hillsborough families’ long campaign for the truth, Ms Glass acknowledged, and pledged to respond to, their eagerness, now, to see justice after so many years of denial.

  This language was on all fours with the stated commitment of the commission to put the complainant at the heart of their investigation. But, in appearing to promise ‘Justice after so many years of denial’, that seemed like overpromising at the start of a supposedly objective process.

  At paragraph thirteen of her report, Ms Glass does point out to the careful reader that the Hillsborough Panel has made no direct allegations against any individual or institution. Yet, in the very next paragraph, she states, unequivocally, that there are potential criminal issues disclosed by the report concerning allegations about what happened after the disaster, including that evidence was fabricated and misinformation was spread in an attempt to avoid blame. She even spelled out what the criminal charges might amount to before an investigative stone was turned. It all added up to the image of a commission setting about a serious task with a concluded sense of purpose.

  Whatever my own assessment of Deborah Glass’s commentary on the Hillsborough Panel Report, and her subsequent televised press conference to launch the investigation, it was clear what message the press and public had taken away. The Yorkshire Post published the following account:

  Yorkshire’s most senior police Chief may face criminal charges after the biggest ever investigation into British Policing was launched yesterday. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said the actions of Sir Norman Bettison … could amount to perverting the course of justice, an offence which carries life imprisonment. The IPCC said it has identified a large number of potential criminal and misconduct offences and will now work alongside the Crown Prosecution Service to bring those responsible to justice.

  Having seen Deborah Glass’s televised press conference and read the reports and editorial comment in the Yorkshire Post, the recently retired Honorary Recorder of Bradford, His Honour Judge James Stewart, was moved to write to the newspaper. The letter, published in the Yorkshire Post on 22 October, pointed out that Ms Glass’s injudicious remarks and the resultant reporting of them meant that it was ‘doubtful whether Sir Norman Bettison, if subsequently charged with any offence, could be subject to a fair trial’. He concluded: ‘I don’t know the truth of the situation any more than anyone else. However, it does strike me that the coverage thus far has lacked balance. I always thought that, in this country, a man was presumed innocent until proven guilty.’

  Ms Glass’s comments, when launching the IPCC investigation into matters pertaining to Hillsborough, might be thought to demonstrate, in the view of the learned judge, an apparent bias in advance of any investigation having taken place. Her approach is by no means unique. We seem to live in an era where all kinds of institutions strive to be instantly popular; demonstrate they are on trend; and seek to avoid any immediate public criticism falling on themselves. They say things that are presumed to be popular in the short term without considering the longer-term implications.

  A striking example of this tendency was demonstrated, a little more recently, by Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald of the Metropolitan Police. Mr McDonald was in charge of the Met’s Operation Midland, the investigation into the alleged paedophile activity of named, high-profile individuals. In a television interview, at the very outset of the investigation, Mr McDonald pre-empted the outcome by stating that the evidence of a key witness and accuser was both ‘credible and true’.

  There are some contemporary popular campaigns, such as those around historical sexual abuse, where the narrative has become so deeply ingrained that even seasoned investigators are drawn towards a kind of newspeak. They intone platitudes such as ‘the victim must always be believed’ – a phrase which may serve as a useful motto for the twenty-first century in overcoming past cultural barriers, but is hardly an immutable investigative rule.

  Campaigners can be forgiven for asserting the claim to new expectations in investigative processes. But if easy rhetoric, such as ‘the victim must always be believed’, becomes the guiding principle for journalists and regulators then we are, as David Aaronovitch has said, ‘all in big trouble’.

  From my experience of criminal investigation over four decades, I would say that a responsible investigator is always better served by keeping and demonstrating an open mind and following the evidence in a professional manner. That approach has served us well since the Judges’ Rules were set out, in 1912, as a guide for investigators.

  That open-minded approach was not apparent at the start of the IPCC Hillsborough investigation. The formal public launch and press conference seemed to be shaped as much by popular attitudes as it was by prima facie evidence.

  Following Ms Glass’s breathless response to the Hillsborough Panel Report (The Guardian called it ‘dizzying’), the pace and focus of the investigation has since been more pedestrian and unstructured than I could have ever imagined.

  I had written to the IPCC on 5 October 2012, welcoming their scrutiny and again, later that month when ousted by my Police Authority, to say that, notwithstanding, I remained committed to assisting their investigation. I did not hear anything further from the IPCC until 15 February 2014, seventeen months after being so publicly identified by the commission as a central suspect in a criminal conspiracy. The IPCC wrote setting out their terms of reference for the investigation and stating that they wished to interview me, under criminal caution and in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday 11 March 2014. They told me that there might be documents disclosed to me prior to the interview. The letter also added that if I failed to attend voluntarily then consideration would be given to arresting me to complete the interview. That was an unnecessary and gratuitous threat given my communications in 2012 that I was not only willing, but anxious to get this thing resolved.

  There was indeed pre-interview disclosure – a mountain of it, and more has been served subsequently. The disclosed documents currently fill four lever-arch folders.

  The material divides into four broad categories: firstly, anticipated documents, drawn from the 450,000 that were available to the Hillsborough Panel, and referenced against my name in their report; second, material unfamiliar to me that was held by Hammond Suddards solicitors who represented South Yorkshire Police after the disaster; third, documents that have nothing to do with the Hillsborough aftermath at all, such as my application form for the job of Chief Constable with Merseyside Police; and fourth, material that has little or nothing to do with me at all.

  Some of the first items on the disclosure list, which were loosely organised in a chronological order, were press photographs of senior officers briefing Margaret Thatcher, then Prime Minister, the day after the Hillsborough disaster. This confirmed, in my mind, that the IPCC had truly ‘put the complainant at the heart of the investi
gation’ as they proudly and frequently boast.

  The Hillsborough Panel had not so much as hinted that I was in any way involved in briefing senior politicians in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. This is, though, one of the odd myths that was created, when controversy surrounded my appointment to Merseyside, that I was responsible for briefing and misleading the Prime Minister about the disaster. Like most myths it was not clear where the notion had come from.

  Analysing the disclosed documents, it was obvious what the investigative lines were going to be at interview. I therefore prepared a fourteen-page statement addressing all of the relevant issues. I intended to hand the statement to the interviewers whom I met on 11 March 2014.

  The interview was conducted at the IPCC offices in Sale, Greater Manchester. I attended with my solicitor Nick Holroyd. The first thing we did was to hand over my fourteen-page voluntary statement and video tapes from 1989 that were likely to be of use to the investigators. The interview was tape-recorded and I was given the criminal caution in order to make me aware that anything that I said or failed to respond to, in this context, could be used in a court of law. I understood the dance moves but had always led in the past. It was uncomfortable adjusting to the submissive role but it was important to assist the investigation.

  The interview was discursive and, on this first day, lasted for almost five hours with a break for lunch. I was content that the issues that were put to me were adequately addressed by my voluntary statement. Wherever an issue came up that had not been subject to prior disclosure, I prepared a further written response and handed it to the investigators. There have been five in total.

  I was asked to return for interview on a further three occasions over the succeeding months. I agreed on all occasions, always meeting the diary availability of the investigators. The three subsequent interviews each took place at the IPCC regional office in Wakefield.

  I attended on 17 April, 3 June and 4 June 2014. The total time spent in interview was over twenty hours. I remain content that I have addressed, by way of formal written response, all of the issues that were put to me at interview.

  Towards the end of the last interview, held on 4 June 2014, the IPCC investigator, Sharon Dalton, formally served upon me a statement by John Barry. I was acutely aware of John Barry’s allegation about comments that he claims I had made to him in 1989. It had been publicised by Maria Eagle MP in the House of Commons during a debate on the Hillsborough Panel Report in October 2012. John Barry had then done a round of media interviews where he repeated the allegation that, in 1989, I had told him that my job was to concoct a story to put the blame for the disaster on the Liverpool fans. It was the final straw that cost me my livelihood. Here was an opportunity to see his statement about that alleged conversation for the first time.

  The IPCC’s disclosure of Mr Barry’s statement was curious for a number of reasons. First of all, the statement had not been taken from Mr Barry until February 2014, a full sixteen months after he had made his serious allegation in the most public fashion. Second, and notwithstanding this inordinate delay in taking a statement, it was available for disclosure along with other papers that the IPCC had sent to me in March 2014 and yet they had chosen to hold this back. Third, in response to a question from my solicitor on 3 June Sharon Dalton had said that every relevant document that was available for disclosure had been disclosed. Yet, twenty-four hours later, there was this fresh disclosure of a statement taken months prior. Fourth, and most curiously of all, the investigators stated that they did not want to ask me any questions about Mr Barry’s allegation and, in the time that remained in interview that day, they were as good as their word.

  That has remained the position of the IPCC until the present day. They have never asked for my response to Mr Barry’s allegation that he first raised publicly four years ago and which he regularly repeats in the media. From a professional investigator’s point of view, I cannot understand why not. Any objective search for the truth would surely seek to establish the veracity of Mr Barry’s crucial account.

  After an IPCC investigation of twenty months, and after twenty-odd hours of being interviewed, this seemed an inappropriate place to leave the potentially devastating and therefore critical testimony of Mr Barry.

  I wanted the opportunity to rebut his allegation. I asked my solicitor, Nick Holroyd, to write to the IPCC immediately after that last day of interview. He did so and stated that his client was keen to deal with any other outstanding matters, including the Barry statement, and offered dates in July 2014 for further interview. The IPCC responded on 26 June 2014 to say that they now intended to trace and take statements from others on the MBA course that was shared, in 1989, by me and Mr Barry. The email indicated an intention to convene a further interview thereafter. I was pleased to learn of those intentions. Whilst it would be difficult for anyone to accurately remember conversations and events from twenty-five years ago, I hoped that some would remember my enforced absence from the programme at the very time Mr Barry was alleging that I had made a confession to being involved in a criminal conspiracy. It was important that the IPCC investigators track down those potential witnesses and any documentary evidence, such as a course register.

  I heard nothing more about this crucial line of investigation. There was no disclosure of further material and no suggestion of another interview date. In fact, there was no communication at all. The IPCC were not interested, and have strangely remained uninterested, in my account.

  Nine months later, I was summoned to appear at the Coroner’s Inquest to give evidence and be examined about my involvement in the post-disaster procedures and evidence-gathering. The Coroner, Lord Justice Goldring, had ruled that Mr Barry should also be called at the same time as me so that his testimony could be heard by the jury.

  It was obvious to me that this disputed evidence would form the centrepiece of my court appearance. It would receive wide publicity, yet again, two years after Mr Barry had first made his allegation. I was therefore keen to establish what other evidence had been obtained by the IPCC investigators, who had promised, nine months earlier, to pursue this avenue.

  My legal counsel, Paul Greaney QC, wrote to the IPCC on 23 March 2015 to enquire, pointing out that both Mr Barry and I were due to give evidence within weeks. He listed the reasons why it was fair and proper to disclose beforehand what evidence had been discovered. He seemed just as astonished as I was to receive a letter in response which confirmed that ‘no further witness statements have yet been obtained from those who attended the same MBA course as your client’. The IPCC indicated that the line of investigation remained live and that ‘[w]e will notify you of the outcome in due course’.

  Mr Greaney wrote what can only be described as a stern letter to point out, once again, the unfair position that this would put me in when giving evidence alongside Mr Barry at the inquest. He sent the letter electronically on 7 April 2015 to the head of the Hillsborough investigation at the IPCC, encouraging, even at that late stage, urgent enquiries with fellow students, and administrators, on the MBA course.

  Mr Mahaffey, the head of the investigation, responded electronically at close of business on 28 April, three weeks after the urgent request for action from my lawyer and less than two days before Mr Barry and I were due to step into the witness box at the inquest. Mr Mahaffey said:

  We have been aware of the allegations of Mr Barry since Maria Eagle raised them in Parliament (October 2012). Lines of enquiry which related to this issue were progressed as far as possible given resource constraints but were not made an absolute priority. Had the Coroner requested that we prioritise them, we would have done so. No such request has been received.

  I do realise that there is only so much that can be achieved by 220 staff in relation to the complex set of issues surrounding the Hillsborough disaster. Nevertheless, I would have thought that the widely published allegation that someone openly boasted that he was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to shift the blame for th
e disaster onto the Liverpool fans might have warranted some kind of priority within the intervening two and a half years. At the very least, the memories of those who would have evidence in relation to this serious allegation might be subject to further deterioration or influence during that interval.

  When I received my summons to give evidence at the Coroner’s Inquest, I was asked about my dates of availability in April. I was as helpful as I could be in response. I was available throughout the month but did warn the Coroner’s team that my youngest step-daughter was to be married from home on the bank holiday weekend of 2 May and so, if there was a likelihood of being part heard at the end of the month then I would prefer to start my evidence after the bank holiday weekend. I was assured that I would definitely not be part heard at the end of the month and the first dates that were provided to me were in mid-April 2015.

  I’ve been around the court process long enough to realise that listing does not always run smoothly and wasn’t surprised when those dates slipped. The dates kept slipping, sometimes in order to accommodate other witnesses who had availability difficulties. The job of a court listing officer must sometimes feel like three-dimensional chess.

  The court date eventually slipped to 28 April, four days before the wedding weekend. I was reassured that those approving the listing arrangements were alive to my personal circumstances and they remained confident that I would be fully heard before the weekend.

  To cut a long story short, I eventually gave evidence over four days beginning on Thursday 30 April 2015. Two days before the wedding weekend and two days after it. This arrangement which I had been trying to avoid meant that the newspapers, on the day that guests began to arrive for the wedding, contained the rehashed allegations of John Barry. Furthermore, as I was part heard, I was prohibited from discussing the evidence with anyone.