The document summarizes the work of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in investigating the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The Panel was tasked with discovering and examining documents to add to public understanding of what happened. It identified over 150 organizations that may have held relevant information, received documents from 85, and digitized over 350,000 pages. The Panel worked to disclose information to the families first while maintaining data privacy. Its report concluded that new inquests were needed based on evidence found, and helped lead to apologies and further investigations.

1. © Public Partners 20061|
Hillsborough
The Tangled Web
The National Archives
Tuesday 16th
April 2013
Christine Gifford
Hillsborough Independent Panel

2. © Public Partners 2006
April 15th
1989
FA Cup Semi Final
Liverpool FC v Nottingham Forest FC
at
Hillsborough Sheffield
The home of Sheffield Wednesday FC

3. © Public Partners 2006
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

4. © Public Partners 2006
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.
Hillsborough – the Tangled Web

5. © Public Partners 2006
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

6. © Public Partners 2006
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

7. © Public Partners 2006
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

8. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
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

9. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – the Tangled Web
Hillsborough 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 refused
Demonstration 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

10. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
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

11. © Public Partners 2006
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

12. © Public Partners 2006
Panel
Chair – The Rt Rev James Jones – Bishop of Liverpool
Members
•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

13. © Public Partners 2006
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

14. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
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

15. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
Major 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

16. © Public Partners 2006
Access and Disclosure
Memoranda 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 Web

17. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – the Tangled Web
Assumptions made within the Redaction
framework
FOI
•That for public sector organisations where legal and
professional privilege might have applied this would be
waived
Data 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 relevant
Involvement of Information Commissioner
•SI to protect processing by organisations
•Available for advice and assistance

18. © Public Partners 2006
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.

19. © Public Partners 2006
Digitisation and QA
•Huge amount of paper information
Issues 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
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web

20. © Public Partners 2006

22. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
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

23. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – the Tangled Web
How 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.

24. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – the Tangled Web
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

25. © Public Partners 2006
Hillsborough – The Tangled Web
Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel
http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/repository/report/HIP_report
Christine Gifford
chris.gifford@publicpartners.org
www.publicpartners.org
©Public Partners 2013