The Independent/London
Jack Straw was embroiled in a fresh row over the Hillsborough disaster after new documents revealed he had made up his mind within five weeks of coming to power that there was no need for a fresh inquiry into the tragedy.
“It was obvious anyway that I thought there was not enough evidence, otherwise I would have had an inquiry
A “restricted” memo to Tony Blair in June 1997 outlined Straw’s fears that the public would refuse to accept that verdict from the government – and said that it had to come from an independent source instead.
Straw wrote to the then attorney-general, John Morris: “I am certain that continuing public concern will not be allayed with a reassurance from the Home Office that there is no new evidence. I therefore propose that there should be an independent examination of the alleged new evidence by a senior legal figure.”
At the end of June 1997, he met Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, appointed to lead the review. He told him that his officials had already looked at the case and concluded that “there was not sufficient evidence to justify a new inquiry”.
The scepticism conveyed to the judge before he had even started his inquiry contrasted with Straw’s statements to the House of Commons on the disaster at the time. He told MPs: “I am determined to go as far as I can to ensure that no matter of significance is overlooked and that we do not reach a final conclusion without a full and independent examination of the evidence.”
The Stuart-Smith inquiry, which lasted seven months, was widely criticised over its conclusion that there was no case for a new inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster, which claimed the lives of 96 Liverpool fans at the FA Cup semi-final in 1989.
The judge also failed to investigate fully evidence that police statements from the day had been substantially re-written – a key finding of the Hillsborough Independent Panel report, published earlier this month.
Hillsborough campaigners reacted angrily, claiming the files undermined the credibility of a review that could have enabled them to find out the truth about the tragedy 15 years ago.
Margaret Aspinall, whose son James died at Hillsborough, said: “He gave a full assurance that he was going to look into everything about Hillsborough and it’s quite obvious to me that was the start of another little cover-up. All governments let us down. It wasn’t just the Conservatives. But with Jack Straw, I’d had meetings with him and he categorically promised that every aspect would be looked into. What he did was very deceitful because he didn’t tell us the truth of his own opinion and we didn’t get proper scrutiny.”
Lord Mawhinney, a former Tory cabinet minister and the honorary president of the Football League, said: “If a senior minister sets up any form of inquiry, he ought not to be trying to direct the conclusions before the investigation even starts. This would include things like telling the investigator his own personal view. I have never come across a case before of a senior minister doing this.”
Straw insisted that he had done nothing wrong, and had made his doubts about any inquiry clear to MPs at the time.
He added: “It was obvious anyway that I thought there was not enough evidence, otherwise I would have had an inquiry. A few minutes’ looking through the papers would have told (Stuart-Smith) that.”
Straw also criticised the judge for “not doing a proper job”.
There is no suggestion of any wrongdoing on the part of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, who is unwell after suffering a stroke last year.
A retired colleague and close friend, Lord Justice Sir John Waite, said: “I cannot understand what basis there could possibly be for Straw’s assertion that Sir Murray had not ‘done his job properly’. It sounds to me like a case of someone trying to shift the blame from their own shoulders.”