A recent report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct revealed that a family member of a Hillsborough victim was placed under surveillance by the police. This finding has brought to light longstanding complaints from families and campaigners about alleged police surveillance, with instances of strange clicking sounds reported during phone conversations. The IOPC’s investigation looked into 27 complaints involving 25 individuals connected to the 1989 tragedy, with one complaint of police surveillance being upheld.
Specifically, the report detailed an incident where a family member was visibly followed by police officers for nearly a week, with direct interactions occurring at least once. Notably, the report did not disclose the identity of the police force involved in this surveillance.
The Hillsborough disaster occurred during a FA Cup semi-final match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest on April 15, 1989. Following the tragedy that claimed the lives of 97 Liverpool fans, South Yorkshire Police wrongly accused the supporters of causing the disaster, a claim that has since been debunked.
The IOPC’s extensive investigation, costing £150 million, identified 12 police officers who would have faced gross misconduct proceedings for their failures on the day of the disaster and subsequent efforts to shift blame onto fans. Despite these findings, the families impacted by the tragedy feel that justice has not been served as no disciplinary actions can be taken against the former officers involved.
Furthermore, the report highlighted another upheld complaint involving West Midlands Police officers acting in an intimidating manner while retrieving documents from a family member. The IOPC also expressed concerns about potential biases within South Yorkshire Police’s investigation of the disaster.
In response to allegations of telephone surveillance, the IOPC contacted relevant police forces, but no evidence of such surveillance was found. The Home Office maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying police interception of phone calls, while directing affected parties to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal for further investigation.
The report also addressed concerns about potential police involvement in burglaries related to the Hillsborough case. However, after thorough investigation, no evidence of police participation in these incidents was found, with witness reports suggesting other parties were responsible.
Overall, the report emphasized significant failures by the police and deliberate attempts to shift blame onto fans. Despite changes in legislation allowing ex-officers to face misconduct proceedings, the lack of retrospective application means that accountability for past actions remains limited.
Finally, following criticism of the South Yorkshire Police branch’s response to the report, the Police Federation of England and Wales issued an apology for the insensitive remarks made. The Federation acknowledged the distress caused and expressed regret for the statement, emphasizing the need for respect and sensitivity towards the Hillsborough victims, survivors, and their families.