Hillsborough and the power of documentary evidence

 
People gather before giant screen displaying names of the 96 victims

The vast quantity of material released by the Hillsborough Independent Panel contains much of the truth - the real truth - about the nation's worst sporting tragedy and its aftermath. In some ways the panel's work and its reception is testament to the power of documentary evidence.

This wasn't a traditional public inquiry aimed at analysing causes, interrogating the views and counter-views of those involved, attaching blame and devising recommendations for the future.

It was simply an attempt to collate all the available evidence and to publish it. I was struck by how, at their press conference, the panel members stressed that this was their role and that they did not seek to make value judgements.

Yet it is clear from the reaction to the panel's report that this did nothing to reduce its impact. Facts, not comment, have caused shock and outrage, headlines and apologies.

The panel and its research and archiving staff have certainly done an impressive job of organising, cataloguing, presenting, contextualising and summarising a huge amount of paperwork. The excellent Guardian Datablog has an interesting overview of the material released.

Of course documents by themselves can never provide the full truth about a complex set of events. That would always need to take in individual recollections, the direct accounts of those involved, and the chance for those criticised to provide their version of events.

But when there are well-founded suspicions of a cover-up by the authorities, the pure disclosure of the raw information can be the crucial remedy. This is the key point appreciated by Andy Burnham when, as a cabinet minister, he persuaded the Labour government to establish the panel in 2009.

And as regular readers of this blog will know, the BBC pursued a freedom of information request about the tragedy from the time before the panel was established.

Perhaps this is a model that may be adapted to other controversies. It suits an era where we have the technology of the internet and the political force of the notion of transparency.

Driven by their distress over cover-ups and misinformation, the bereaved families have long demanded complete disclosure of all relevant documents. Has this total disclosure been achieved?

Copy of the report In 2009, Labour waived the 30-year rule for disclosing public documents relating to the disaster

As conscientiously recorded by the panel, it decided not to publish - despite the wishes of most of the bereaved families - some "very sensitive personal data". This was "out of respect for those who died" and is of course entirely understandable.

It redacted some personal information about others where disclosure would not "add to public understanding".

The panel also encountered insuperable legal obstacles to obtaining some material held by Liverpool Law Society on behalf of local solicitors who had represented the bereaved and survivors in various proceedings.

But there is no evidence that any part of the state has held anything back from the panel.

Although papers revealing the views of government ministers were originally excluded from the panel's terms of reference, this constraint was abandoned and they do feature in the files released.

In fact, the thoroughness of disclosure is such that they even include extracts from the cabinet secretary's notebook recording discussions at cabinet meetings. Unlike the official minutes, this notes the different views of individual ministers. In the past, the notebooks have been kept secret - as noted by the National Archives - for longer than the standard 30-year rule which applies to the official record of the meetings.

It is possible to compare the handwritten notes taken by the cabinet secretary Sir Robin Butler at the cabinet meeting in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy with the official minutes.

Start Quote

Strenuous efforts were made to persuade [Royal Sun Alliance] to allow the panel confidential access to the relevant material, but it maintained its refusal”

End Quote Hillsborough Panel report

The one organisation criticised by the panel for not fully co-operating and supplying all the information it could is a private - not public - body.

This is the Royal Sun Alliance insurance company, which at the time of the disaster in 1989 insured Sheffield Wednesday, the club that owns the Hillsborough ground. The panel report draws attention to numerous safety defects at the venue.

The insurance company refused to give the panel confidential access to its legally privileged information, despite the panel's "strenuous efforts" to persuade the company to comply.

A company spokesperson told me: "The panel's terms of reference related to the disclosure of documents held by public bodies and did not apply to any of the private bodies involved. However, we willingly co-operated with the panel, disclosing all relevant materials in our possession. It is not our practice to release legally privileged materials."

Under the Freedom of Information Act, public authorities can be forced to disclose legal advice and other legally privileged documents when this would be in the public interest.

There is no similar legal provision for the private sector.

 
Martin Rosenbaum, Freedom of information specialist Article written by Martin Rosenbaum Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist

Fast food chains with poor hygiene

A BBC analysis shows wide variation in the hygiene ratings of different restaurant chains. About one third of Dixy Chicken and Chicken Cottage outlets are unsatisfactory.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 6.

    The panel decided not to publish "very sensitive" personal data despite the wishes of most of the families. For families to want that it must be seriously bad.

    I didnt know there was no similar provision for FOI in the private sector. This needs addressing.

    My condolences to the families and friends of the 96 victims and the others affected that day. I Hope justice is swift and correct.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 5.

    #1 benbowlane I wish I could believe that at some time there has been/will be a proper and open investigation into the death of Dr Kelly. The Hillsborough families have thankfully benefitted in their efforts from their weight of numbers - I fear that the people who wish to see Dr Kelly's case re-investigated do not have the same leverage.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 4.

    How ironic!

    The BBC bangs on about the value of FOI requests & how the BBC led the way on making them.

    Look at the results of FOI requests INTO the BBC from their paymasters (us!) & the invariable invoking of the "BBC exception" by which the BCC can just say NO.

    "except for the purposes of journalism, art or literature" seems to include how many visitors to the BBC websites! Yeah - right! Not!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 3.

    This is really shocking and shows why it is important that public services must still be subject FOI rules even if they are contracted out to private services.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 2.

    2 decades for justice! People died, loved-ones died, sons & daughters died..."Justice delayed is justice denied" - legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all.
    I can only hope that the delivery of justice runs more expeditiously.

 

Comments 5 of 6

 

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • MoviesWhat to watch

    BBC Culture picks eight top movies coming out in September

Programmes

  • Man dancingClick Watch

    Searching for the DNA of dance music – the quest to find the perfect party anthem

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.