Peter Metcalf, the former Hammond Suddards partner implicated in last week’s Hillsborough report, could face a Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation for his conduct following the 1989 tragedy.
The former partner at Squire Sanders’ UK legacy firm told The Lawyer last week that he was retired. But he is still registered with the SRA as a practising solicitor, working as a consultant for his own firm PC Metcalf.
As Metcalf is still on the roll the SRA would be able to examine whether he failed to uphold the integrity of the law in the aftermath of the 1989 tragedy, in which 96 Liverpool FC fans died.
An SRA spokesman said: “We are aware of the reports and are considering them.”
Members of the Hillsborough Families Support Group and the Hillsborough Justice Campaign have pledged to continue to fight for fresh inquests and then criminal action, describing a “clear conspiracy to cover up”.
Solicitor James Saunders, a managing director with Saunders Law, is formally instructed by the Hillsborough Family Support Group to pursue further action.
He told The Lawyer: “I’m instructed to take certain contentious steps to advance their interests, some of that is litigation, some regulatory. I’m looking at a great deal of information very carefully with a view to taking action.”
Saunders has previously said it is up to the Attorney-General Dominic Grieve to apply to the High Court to quash the current inquest verdict which he said was “based on evidence that had been tampered with and and untrue version of events”.
Although he refused to be drawn on the HFSG’s next move, it is understood that making an official complaint about Metcalf to the SRA is imminent.
Under SRA legislation, all solicitors are under an obligation to uphold the law and work in the interests of justice.
In the report by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, released last week, Metcalf was named as being involved in the process of the “review and alteration” of police officers’ recollections about the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.
The report, published on Wednesday, claims that Metcalf, recommended that a South Yorkshire Police (SYP) chief amend statements taken by officers in the aftermath of the disaster and that 116 of the 164 statements from officers identified for “substantive amendment” were amended to remove “comments unfavourable to SYP”.
The report states: “Prior to the [1998] Stuart-Smith Scrutiny, an SYP officer had revealed that in the immediate aftermath of the disaster officers had been instructed not to make entries in pocket-books but to submit handwritten recollections for word-processing. The recollections had been sent to Peter Metcalf, a senior partner in Hammond Suddards, the solicitors representing SYP, who returned them to Chief Superintendent Donald Denton, with recommendations for ‘review and alteration’.”
Metcalf, when contacted by The Lawyer last week said he had not read the report (13 September).
He was unavailable for further comment today.
Readers' comments (4)
jason | 18-Sep-2012 9:15 am
as a regulatory and criminal practitioner i find it staggering that thit never came out about the notebook entries, certainly during the inquest. The police officers in the case have had a number of opportunities to come clean about the cover up and for their own reasons have chosen not to (presumably when giving evidence). Hardly something which should be laid at the door of a solicitor acting on his clients instructions.
Also the alleged breach of professional conduct seems to be the new rule inserted in the post OFR professional conduct rules and not perhaps what was in force at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Frank Maher | 18-Sep-2012 11:22 am
Re Jason's second point - the applicable rules would be the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990. Rule 1 provided -
A solicitor shall not do anything in the course of practising as a solicitor, or permit another person to do anything on his or her behalf, which compromises or impairs or is likely to compromise or impair any of the following:
(a) the solicitor's independence or integrity;
(b) a person's freedom to instruct a solicitor of his or her choice;
(c) the solicitor's duty to act in the best interests of the client;
(d) the good repute of the solicitor or of the solicitor’s profession;
(e) the solicitor's proper standard of work;
(f) the solicitor's duty to the Court.
Not radically different from SRA Principles 1 to 6 now.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
you cannot be serious.... | 18-Sep-2012 11:27 am
To suggest a lawyer can ever justify tampering with evidence of this nature (if that is what happened here - and that needs to be considered carefully and unemotionally) is disgraceful.
Too many in the public sector believe that the avoidance of embarassment for them, or for their masters, is a sacred goal that transcends all. We are supposed to be one of the few factors in this country to stand up against such things.
If the legal "profession" is to be worthy of that label, and the privileges we enjoy that go with that, we have to have the guts to show our independence when it is tough to do so, and pressures are deployed against us to cover things up, and not just when it suits our own purposes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Frank Maher | 18-Sep-2012 11:37 am
PS My previous comment should be qualified slightly as the Solicitors Practice Rules 1988 were in force from 25 July 1988 until the 1990 Rules dated 18 July 1990, but (a) to (f) in Rule 1 were the same in each. There was a change in the opening paragraph though which I don't think is material.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment