Hillsborough Scandal Deepens: Report Confirms Police Surveillance of Victims’ Families, Systemic Cover-Up

A comprehensive, years-long investigation into police conduct surrounding the devastating Hillsborough disaster has uncovered evidence that officers actively monitored a family member of a victim. The inquiry also revealed that twelve former police officers would have faced severe disciplinary action, including gross misconduct charges, had they still been serving.

The recently published findings concluded that South Yorkshire Police (SYP) demonstrated fundamental failures in their planning leading up to the 1989 stadium crush, which tragically claimed the lives of 97 people. The report further detailed concerted efforts by the force to deflect blame onto supporters in the years following the tragedy. Among those identified in connection with these failures were SYP Chief Constable Peter Wright and match commander Chief Inspector David Duckenfield.

Over the decades, persistent allegations have emerged from Hillsborough families and campaigners claiming they were subjected to police surveillance, with many recalling unusual clicking sounds during phone conversations. Investigators examined 27 complaints from 25 individuals linked to the disaster, concerning alleged police monitoring.

Of these complaints, one specific allegation was upheld: a family member was conspicuously followed by police officers for nearly a week, even directly confronting the officers on at least one occasion. While the report did not specify the force involved in this incident, another upheld complaint indicated officers from West Midlands Police (WMP) behaved in an “unnecessarily intimidating way” when retrieving a document from a family member. WMP had been tasked with investigating SYP’s actions regarding Hillsborough but was found to have been “biased” against supporters and in favor of its fellow force.

Millenium TV has learned that authorities requested evidence of telephone surveillance from all relevant police forces, but no records were found. This lack of documentation, officials noted, could either signify that no such surveillance occurred, or that records were destroyed in compliance with retention policies. The Home Office maintained its longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying police telephone interception. However, investigators directed families to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which holds the authority to verify government records on phone tapping.

Further investigations looked into a series of burglaries in the Merseyside area, including incidents at the Hillsborough Centre, the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC) shop, and the home of an HJC member. Five complaints suggested potential police involvement, partly due to the theft of documents containing “information of value” primarily to law enforcement. Millenium TV understands that Merseyside Police’s initial response to inquiries regarding these burglaries was “disappointingly slow,” requiring escalation to senior officers.

Upon receiving the records, investigators expressed concerns over how the burglary reports were logged, including one instance where two separate incidents were conflated. Crucially, no information had been recorded about the burglaries at the individual campaigner’s residence. Merseyside Police stated that processes were in place at the time and that efforts have been made to ensure officers adhere to them. Despite these issues, the investigation found no direct evidence of police involvement in the burglaries, with one witness account attributing responsibility to “youths.”

Reflecting on the comprehensive findings, Charlotte Hennessy, whose father James was killed at Hillsborough, expressed deep frustration. “We will never truly know the full extent of South Yorkshire Police force’s deception, but there is no hiding, there is no destroying, and there is no way to cover up that they failed their duties and then they sought to blame the victims,” she stated in a press conference following the report’s release. A 2017 change in law allowing former officers to face misconduct proceedings does not apply retrospectively.