Hillsborough inquest hears claim that police planned to concoct story
|
Version 0 of 1. A chief inspector with South Yorkshire police at the time of the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has rejected allegations that the police would concoct a story about Liverpool fans being drunk and to make sure that the police did not take responsibility for the tragedy. Sir Norman Bettison told the jury at the inquests in Warrington, Cheshire: “I did not say anything like that.” Bettison gave evidence on a day of damaging claims against South Yorkshire police. Earlier, John Barry, a former civil servant, told the court that Bettison told him in the Fleur de Lys pub in Sheffield a month after the disaster at the FA Cup semi-final that South Yorkshire police would try to “concoct a story that all of the Liverpool fans were drunk”. Barry said he and Bettison were among a group of people who went to the pub following a business course they attended. Barry told the court that both had just got a pint and moved away from the bar when Bettison told him: “I have been asked by my senior officers to pull together this South Yorkshire police evidence for the [Taylor] inquiry and we are going to try to concoct a story that all of the Liverpool fans were drunk and that we were afraid they were going to break down the gates so we decided to open them.” Another witness, Mark Ellaby, who was working as a local government officer at Sheffield city council, told the inquest: “I remember Mr Bettison saying that he’d just been seconded to an internal team in South Yorkshire police who were tasked with making sure that South Yorkshire police bore no blame for Hillsborough disaster and it was all the fault of the drunken Liverpool supporters.” When asked to respond, Bettison said: “I didn’t say that and when I heard him give his evidence, he seemed to say he inferred that from what I was saying.” Barry said he attended the game at Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium and was in the Leppings Lane end. He left “extremely distressed” shortly before 4pm and later told students on a business course, including Bettison, that he missed a class because he had been at the match. The witness said Bettison approached him afterwards and said he too had been to the game when off duty. Jonathan Hough QC, counsel for the inquest, asked Barry: “You are aware that Sir Norman Bettison has denied the words that were attributed to him and that he continues in that denial?” “Yes,” replied Barry. Hough said: “It might be said that the words you attributed to Norman Bettison would have been very foolish words for him to speak. Words that could, if made public, threaten his career. Would you accept that?” Barry replied: “That is correct.” Hough said: “What would you say to the suggestion that it was rather odd for him to say those words to somebody he did not particularly know well?” The witness said: “It was odd. I was very very surprised. I couldn’t understand it.” Asked why he had not come forward with his information nearer to the time of the disaster, he said: “I wish that I had gone to the Taylor inquiry with it but I think there are several reasons that I have explained why I did not ... I mean just the shock, the trauma I was going through in the months afterwards and the isolation.” He said he did not and had never held a grudge against Bettison. Barry agreed with Paul Greaney QC, representing the Police Federation, that he had been describing what amounted to Bettison “announcing to you that there was to be a coverup and having done so there was not another word”. Greaney said: “For all he knew you were part of the group that was to be blamed in the coverup?” The witness replied: “Yes.” The barrister continued: “Can you understand why it might be thought, to say the least, not at all likely that an intelligent and experienced police officer should admit to you behaviour that was, at the very least, career-ending?” Barry said: “I would have thought it unlikely if anybody had put the suggestion to me. It was unlikely but it happened. What I said is what happened.” He agreed that he had been and continued to be “deeply affected” by his experiences at Hillsborough. Bettison said he recalled having a discussion about Hillsborough with fellow students two days after the disaster. “I can recall two three things in conversation,” he said. “The first is that there were an awful lot of people in the conversation who did not know the correction to the lie about the opening of the gate and I can recall that I talked about that being definitely under police direction.” Bettison said: “I did offer the view that there may be a reason why the gate needed to be opened but that was as far as it went … Some of the comments ascribed to I would not make in a private or public situation.” |