On 27^th of July 1994 Detective Superintendent Gooch of the Lancashire Constabulary submitted his final report (The Gooch Report) to the Police Complaints Authority.

His report was highly critical of the Merseyside Inquiry. It revealed evidence overlooked and ignored by the Merseyside Officers. This was evidence, which would have supported the proposition that Paula committed suicide. It also alleged malpractice in the Merseyside Investigation.

Having received the Gooch Report, the PCA submitted the file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the consideration of criminal charges being brought against the Merseyside Police Officers.

On 31^st of July 1994 the PCA took an unprecedented step and issued a press release indicating that the Gooch Report contained evidence, which cast doubt on the safety of the conviction of Eddie Gilfoyle.

In November 1994 the DPP informed the Gilfoyle family that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of securing any criminal conviction against any Officer of the Merseyside Police Force.

The file was returned to the Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police Force for the purposes of taking disciplinary action against the Police Officers as recommended by the PCA. The Gilfoyle family were aware that disciplinary action was recommended against 13 Merseyside Police Officers and the majority of this disciplinary action would take the form of advice to the Officers concerned regarding their conduct.

The specific nature of these charges and the details of the mischief they related to were denied to Eddies Lawyers and to the Gilfoyle family. This meant they were in a hopeless situation of not being able to use the information in support of Eddies prospective appeal.

In August 1995 Eddies lawyers were disappointed that disciplinary action had not yet taken place. Access was also denied to the Gooch Report as the Chief Constable of Merseyside claimed Public Interest Immunity as regards the report. A date in September had been given for Eddies appeal.

During the last week of August 1995, Eddies solicitors were finally granted by the High Court access to a copy of the Gooch Report. They argued that the disclosure of the report was in the interests of justice.

However, the High Court granted access only to an edited version of the Gooch Report. They ordered that all matters relating to the conclusions and to the opinion of Superintendent Gooch and his Officers must be removed. The report contained blank pages, gaps and large paragraphs were edited out.

The defence were therefore denied access to any important information that may have helped Eddie in his forthcoming appeal against his conviction.

In September 1995, Eddies appeal commenced and although the Appeal Court Judges had sight of the Gooch Report, they stated that they would not allow any evidence to be deduced from it within the appeal. They stated that this was because the Merseyside Officers were subject to disciplinary proceedings not yet heard and that the Chief Constable of Merseyside had not yet decided which officers were going to be subject to discipline.

Eddies appeal lasted three days. It was then adjourned until October 1995, pending the decision of the three Appeal Court Judges.

On 20th October 1995, the Appeal Court issued their Judgement and Eddies appeal against his conviction was dismissed by the three Appeal Court Judges.

One working day after the Judges dismissed Eddies appeal the Chief Constable announced that disciplinary action would be taken against the thirteen Merseyside Police Officers. Most would receive advice with regard to their conduct.

But, disciplinary action, in the form of a Disciplinary Hearing would be taken against Detective Superintendent Harrison, Detective Chief Inspector Baines and Detective Constable Gregson for Neglect of Duty. In the case of Detective Constable Gregson there would be an additional charge of Falsehood and Prevarication. The Merseyside Police said that the Disciplinary Hearing was a private affair and refused to disclose any details in relation to the disciplinary charges. The Gilfoyle family had no idea what the neglect of duty charges related to or what the falsehood and prevarication charges related to.

During the early part of 1996, the Disciplinary Hearing had still not taken place. Susan Caddick made a second complaint in respect of a particular witness. This witness was interviewed by the Merseyside Detectives during the initial police investigation in 1992. The complaint was directed at Detective Chief Inspector Baines.

The witness in question was a catalogue courier. She had alleged that she had sighted Eddie on the driveway of his house at 5.30pm on the day of Paulas death and that Eddie had signed for a parcel. Eddie had told the police that at this time he was at his parents home.

Susan Caddick alleged that this sighting was clearly wrong and could be proved so by the documentary evidence. She alleged that the police Conspired to Pervert the Course of Justice in that they improperly investigated the evidence and knowingly misrepresented the evidence of this witness to the court at the trial. The effect of this misrepresentation at the trial, made it appear that Eddie was telling lies about his whereabouts on the day of his wifes death.

Once again, the PCA supervised this complaint and a Senior Investigating Officer from the Cheshire Constabulary was appointed. This Cheshire Inquiry was a completely separate complaint against the Merseyside Police and should have in no way held up the Disciplinary Hearing in relation to the charges alleged against the three Merseyside Officers named by the PCA and Superintendent Gooch in the Lancashire Inquiry.

On 26^th September 1996 the PCA informed the Gilfoyle family that the Chief Constable of Merseyside had promoted Chief Inspector Baines to the rank of Superintendent. This was despite the fact that the Cheshire Inquiry into the conduct of Baines had not yet concluded and no Disciplinary Hearing had taken place against Baines and the other two Officers named in the Lancashire Inquiry.

On 23^rd October 1996 the Investigating Officers Report, (Cheshire Constabulary), was received by the PCA who passed the file to the Chief Constable of Merseyside. The Chief Constable was to decide if the findings contained in that report revealed any criminal offence as regards the conduct of Superintendent Baines.

On 14^th March 1997 the PCA informed Susan Caddick that with regard to the Cheshire Police Inquiry part of her allegations had been substantiated, although it was proposed that Superintendent Baines receive advice from the Assistant Chief Constable of Merseyside. The PCA stated that the Cheshire Police Inquiry revealed no evidence that any Officer deliberately tampered with evidence in respect of the witness or the exhibits, nor did they intentionally take steps to mislead the court and thereby Pervert the Course of Justice.

In November 1997, the Gilfoyle family learned that Superintendent Harrison, one of the Officers facing the Disciplinary Hearing was about to retire from the Merseyside Police. This would save him from having to attend and face any forthcoming Disciplinary Hearing.

In late 1997/early 1998 the Home Affairs Select Committee considering matters of public confidence regarding complaints against the police highlighted Eddies case. The Disciplinary Hearing had still not taken place against the three Officers named in the Lancashire Inquiry. They said the delay in holding a Disciplinary Hearing was one of the longest in the history of complaints against the police.

The Disciplinary Hearing took place in May 1998. It took three years from the conclusion of the Lancashire Inquiry for the Chief Constable of Merseyside to hold a Disciplinary Hearing and five years from when the original complaints were made.

The Chief Constable of Merseyside heard the evidence at the Disciplinary Hearing and dismissed all of the charges against Detective Superintendent Baines and Detective Constable Gregson finding them not guilty on all counts. Detective Superintendent Harrison did not face the charges at all as he had retired from the Police Force before the hearing took place.

Incredibly, the mysterious appearance of the so-called practice rope was not mentioned throughout the disciplinary hearing and did not form any part of the charges.

Note: Guidelines issued by the PCA, recommend that a Disciplinary Hearing should be arranged within no more than three to four months following the conclusion of any investigation.