Hillsborough charging decisions
Families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster have this week been informed of CPS charging decisions relating to two outstanding suspects.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigated the actions of two retired senior police officers in relation to the criminal investigation undertaken by West Midlands Police (WMP) following the disaster. They investigated whether either WMP officer may have committed any criminal offences, but in particular perverting the course of justice or misconduct in public office or conspiracy to do so.
The IOPC provided files containing around 61,000 pages of evidence in January 2017 and after a CPS request for further investigation, another 12,000 pages was submitted at the end of May 2017.
The allegations were that the two former officers failed to investigate the cause of the Hillsborough disaster properly, either deliberately to assist South Yorkshire Police (SYP) or otherwise negligently, and/or that a misleading or incomplete file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1990.
After careful consideration of the evidence, and the detailed advice provided by counsel, it has been decided that the evidential threshold for criminal prosecution is not met in relation to either suspect. Whilst there was found to be some cause for concern in the actions of both suspects, there is insufficient to reach the high threshold required to prove a criminal offence.
Given the related, live criminal proceedings it would be inappropriate to provide a detailed explanation of the decisions at this time. Some of the outline considerations in reaching these decisions were:
- There is evidence that some aspects of the investigation were not carried out to a high standard. However, there is a lack of evidence showing any deliberate plan or action by the suspects to hinder it
- There is difficulty in attributing responsibility for all of the failings to these suspects
- There is no evidence that, as alleged, one suspect intentionally provided an inappropriate selection of evidence to the DPP so that he did not have an accurate picture of the key evidence available.
In her letter to families, Sue Hemming, Head of Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division at the CPS, wrote:
"I appreciate that my decision will be disappointing to you, but I would like to reassure you that in reaching this conclusion, we have spent a significant amount of time reviewing and considering the evidence that was submitted to us. As you know, the standard of evidence required for any criminal prosecution is high."
The CPS is not considering any other files in relation to Hillsborough, however, six suspects are due to stand trial for offences linked to the disaster and its aftermath.
Ms Hemming added: "May I remind all concerned that criminal proceedings have commenced in relation to other connected matters and of the defendants’ right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice those proceedings."
Notes to editors
Families were this week simultaneously informed by the IOPC that they would not be referring files to the CPS on three SYP officers who were the subject of an investigation. Read more via the IOPC website.
In June 2017, the CPS confirmed the following charges had been authorised in relation to the Hillsborough disaster and its aftermath:
- Former Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, match commander on the day of the disaster, was authorised to be charged with the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 men, women and children
- Former Chief Constable Norman Bettison was charged with four charges of misconduct in public office
- Graham Henry Mackrell, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s company secretary and safety officer at the time, was charged with two offences of contravening a term of condition of a safety certificate contrary to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. Also one offence of failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may have been affected by his acts or omissions at work under the Health and Safety Act 1974
- Peter Metcalf, a solicitor acting for the SYP during the Taylor Inquiry and the first inquests, was charged with doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justiceFormer Chief Superintendent Donald Denton and former Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster were charged with the same offence.
The CPS’s function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.