Martin Fletcher’s book about the Bradford City fire has created worldwide headlines because of its revelation that there had been at least eight previous fires at business premises either owned or connected to the then chairman, Stafford Heginbotham. Fletcher, who was 12 at the time, escaped from the fire but his 11-year-old brother was the youngest victim and his father, his uncle and his grandfather were among the 56 to die at Valley Parade on 11 May 1985. The author has spent 15 years researching the fire and is critical of the inquiry led by the then high court judge, Sir Oliver Popplewell, which featured only five days of testimony. Popplewell describes Heginbotham’s fire history as highly suspicious but believes another investigation will show nothing sinister. He invited Daniel Taylor to his London chambers.

Daniel Taylor The book shows this is the chairman’s ninth or 10th fire and I saw you quoted saying that merited an investigation.

Sir Oliver Popplewell Of course it should have been investigated but when you analyse it, if there had been anything sinister about it, eight or nine fires, the police would have investigated. Fire officers are very sceptical – I’ve been involved in a lot of fire insurance cases – if there had been anything sinister and, above all, Heginbotham’s insurers wouldn’t have insured the various buildings if they weren’t satisfied there was nothing in it. And there is nothing in it.

DT For it not to be part of the inquiry strikes me as remarkable. If that evidence was withheld.

OP It wasn’t ‘withheld’. No one told us about it. The police got all the evidence together. We don’t have the power to go around gathering evidence. The police did. No one suggested this. Nobody wrote in, neither the police nor the fire authorities nor the insurers.

DT It’s an incredible number.

OP I follow. It is incredible. But then you have to ask: ‘How did he set fire to the club? What did he set fire to?’ The place was absolutely jam-packed full. The biggest crowd they’ve had. The fire starts five minutes after half-time when the stand is full of 4,000 people. Now, if you are going to have a fire, you don’t do it when the place is packed.

DT To clarify, though, the author doesn’t ever point a finger directly like that.

OP No, but if you [the author] say it is not an accident …

DT What he says is: can any man in the world be that unlucky?

OP I follow that. It is a perfectly proper question. But the answer is: it’s contrary to all the evidence of the time and it doesn’t make any sense.

DT One of the things I heard you say … it got picked up everywhere because your voice is a very powerful voice and people obviously see you as the authority on this subject … you said on radio that it was a ‘good story’ but immediately falls down because the stand had no insurance value.

OP Yes.

DT That’s wrong, though.

OP It doesn’t have any insurance value.

DT It did.

OP Well, I don’t know why they paid out.

DT They did, though. The club received £500,000 in insurance.

OP From insurance? Football insurance? Or his owner, stand insurance? I’d like to know because it doesn’t make any sense. It had half an hour’s life. No insurance company is going to pay out on something that was going to have only half an hour’s life. Anyway, that’s a point. But the truth is there still wasn’t a single piece of evidence that suggested this was arson.

DT Nigel Adams, one of the country’s leading fire investigators, has said that in 1985 fire forensics were pretty much non-existent and investigators were known as “dust kickers”. He says there has to be another look at this. When someone of that authority says it …

OP Well, we had fire experts at the time but there is nothing to look at now. There isn’t any material now.

DT He clearly thinks there is something to look at.

OP Well, I just don’t know … we had fire evidence from distinguished people. I had a chief fire officer as one of my assessors. We went to the Home Office and they had fire people there. It never occurred to anybody this was arson. There was not a single sign of anything indicating arson. Basically, most arsonists leave some clue, however small. They didn’t.

DT One of the author’s complaints is that the inquiry went too quickly. The inquiry (testimony) lasted as long as the John Terry court case, for example. Five days.

We had all the evidence that was available. Except these previous fires Sir Oliver Popplewell

OP If we had it for 100 days the evidence wouldn’t have been any different. We had all the evidence that was available. Except these previous fires. We had nothing else and there wasn’t anything else. It was all looked into by the fire people. The actual public hearing took only five days but we went back to the Home Office and had more evidence and we produced our inquiry in July. If we had wanted to have an inquiry like the Saville inquiry [into the Bloody Sunday shootings in Derry in 1972] which lasted five years, I’m sure we could have done but we didn’t see any need to.

Popplewell is shown a police document, dated 2 May 1989, after a meeting involving senior officers from the West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Humberside forces to discuss, post-Hillsborough, how the Bradford inquiry was conducted

DT It’s a memo from Superintendent Nettleship from South Yorkshire saying [it was agreed] there was a “severe pruning” of [witness] evidence.

OP What part did he play in Bradford?

DT The Bradford tribunal is described as a seat-of-the-pants affair and quite informal.

OP Was he there? It was quite informal. It was a very serious matter and we wanted to make people feel at ease. But it was conducted perfectly properly and it was tested, the work. Witnesses were cross-examined.

DT So when he says there was a severe pruning …

OP Well, we cut out stuff that was irrelevant. There was a chap from some newspaper who said he had seen something thrown … a bomb thrown, a smoke-bomb.

The then Bradford City chairman, Stafford Heginbotham, left, with Oliver Popplewell, at the time a high court judge, at Valley Parade in 1985. Photograph: Pa/PA Archive/Press Association Images

DT Do you know that wasn’t a newspaper person who said that [first]? It was Stafford Heginbotham. He went on television while the fire was still going on in the background and it was him who sowed the seed that someone had thrown a smoke-bomb.

OP We had a journalist who came along.

DT I’m sure a journalist did say it afterwards but that was because the chairman had gone on television and said it.

OP The journalist said he saw it.

DT Actually saw it being thrown?

OP Yes, he said he saw it going through the air … it was rubbish.

DT Andy Burnham [the shadow health secretary] said he thought the inquiry had been conducted with undue haste.

Why do these politicians climb on a bandwagon? He wasn't there, he didn't listen to the evidence Sir Oliver Popplewell

OP How does he know about it? Why do these politicians climb on a bandwagon? He wasn’t there, he didn’t listen to the evidence. He’s just having a typical politician’s reaction. Sorry, I mustn’t say this … they want to get some publicity because he is in the middle of an election. He doesn’t know anything more about it than any other member of the public.

DT I would accept that more if it was another politician but is that entirely fair on Andy Burnham?

OP I don’t know him at all.

DT He played a huge part in making sure the truth came out about Hillsborough.

OP Well, fine, but all I say is: ‘What does he actually know about Bradford?’ I mean he may have read through all the papers but it doesn’t sound like it.

Taylor has brought Popplewell a copy of the book, passed on by the author

DT Did you say you had read this?

OP No, no, I wouldn’t dream of it

DT Will you be reading it?

OP No.

DT Do you not think you should do?

OP No, I don’t see any point. I’m quite satisfied we arrived at the right conclusion. This all sparks from the previous fires and I can understand that because it is highly suspicious. But the truth is, when you analyse it there is absolutely nothing to it.

DT In your letter to the Guardian you have written Fletcher’s book “comes to the conclusion that the fire was caused by arson” – but he doesn’t say that.

OP Well, he does say it. He doesn’t say it in so many terms. He says it wasn’t an accident and that Heginbotham set fire to it.

DT He really doesn’t say that.

OP Well, what other conclusion are you asked to draw?

DT That’s why I would have thought you would have read the book in full. A newspaper serialisation of a 90,000-word book only gives you a certain amount …

OP It gave a sufficient picture to me that he was saying Heginbotham set fire to it.

DT What he asks is this is a ‘mountain of coincidence’ – do you know anyone in the world who has ever had two major fires, never mind nine?

OP I follow all that, I follow all that, but it doesn’t stand up when you analyse it (pause) … it sounds very suspicious.

DT It was never investigated, was it?

OP I’ve already explained. If the police at the time, and the fire authorities, and his insurers, were perfectly happy about these fires and there was nothing at the scene to indicate this was arson. Everything pointed to it happening in whatever row it was. Have you seen the video? It shows a small flame coming out through [the stand] as being the scene of the fire. Well, how did that happen? How do you put arson into that context? A bit of sense … how did Mr Heginbotham organise a little fire which could have been put out if someone had been alert enough with a fire extinguisher? It makes no sense, absolutely no sense at all. That’s why I say it’s nonsense.

DT Did you see the interview with a detective, Ray Falconer [in the Bradford Telegraph & Argus], who said he had gone to speak personally to a man [from Australia] who said it was his cigarette that started it?

OP I saw that somewhere but we didn’t have that evidence. I’m fairly sure we didn’t. I mean, if that is right, it is even more conclusive.

DT The Bradford Telegraph and Argus described him as a ‘top detective’. He was actually one of the detectives involved in one of the gravest miscarriages of justices in the country, the Carol Wilkinson murder in Bradford, where someone was locked up for 20 years for a murder he didn’t commit.

OP Oh, right.

DT The book says one of the key-holders was told about the fire and told to unlock the doors at 3.30pm, which is before the fire happened. That leaves the question: how was someone told before it happened and told to unlock the doors?

OP The doors were locked. Whether they were all locked we don’t know, because some people undoubtedly got out. It doesn’t mean anything.

DT It strikes me as incredibly strange.

(no reply)

DT No?

(no reply)

DT The book also says three of the four doors were unlocked yet the policy at Bradford at that time, in keeping with the rest of football, was that gates weren’t unlocked until, say, 10 minutes before the end. There is an entire chapter about this unanswered question of why on this day, never before, were they unlocked at that time?

OP Part of the problem at Bradford was the doors went on to the roadway and people used to walk in. But what happened on previous occasions I’ve no idea. Nobody suggested anything untoward that day. No steward came forward. No member of the public came forward. I mean, they interviewed hundreds of witnesses and nothing suspicious was thrown up.

DT There’s also a great focus in the book [from the inquiry] about a lot of people commenting during the first half about a very strong, acrid plastic smell. There were people on their hands and knees trying to find out what it was. Someone asked a guy who was smoking a pipe what he was smoking. The author says it was left. In his words, it was ignored.

OP None of that evidence was presented.

DT But it’s a great piece of the testimony. It forms part of the [inquiry] papers.

OP Not to my knowledge, it doesn’t. I don’t remember any suggestion of there being any smell. My recollection may be quite wrong because it is 30 years ago but I don’t remember a suggestion of there being a smell. The first notification anybody ever had of this fire starting was a small wisp of smoke coming up, which you can see on the video.

I don’t remember any suggestion of there being any smell. My recollection may be quite wrong because it is 30 years ago Sir Oliver Popplewell

DT If you do read the book, several people are quoted as saying there was [the smell of burning plastic].

OP Material before the tribunal?

DT It’s in the tribunal.

OP In the tribunal?

DT The author went to the archive offices to get every piece of testimony. It’s another of the unanswered questions.

OP I simply don’t remember it.

DT What did you make of how Valley Parade was looked after?

OP It was no better no worse than other football grounds. I mean, football grounds in those days were a disgrace. They weren’t user-friendly. Stewards weren’t trained. They were all made of wood, there were no fire precautions, there were no exit signs. There hadn’t been any new grounds built, I think, since Wembley in 1927. They were old-fashioned and very dangerous, but that’s how they were.

DT Bradford did receive a lot of official fire warnings.

OP Oh absolutely. Yes, yes, there’s no doubt about that. They then had a civil case, which was settled [against them] and the football club paid two thirds [the council paid the other third]. They were, in one sense, a fire hazard waiting to happen. There was paper under there that had been there forever.

DT One newspaper they found in the ruins was dated 1968.

OP And I expect it had actually been there since the place was built. Wooden stands were an absolute nightmare. The way the stewards were organised … they didn’t realise they [the grounds] were dangerous but they were.

DT Stafford Heginbotham has a lot of character witnesses, people who will speak on his behalf.

OP I know nothing about his finances … he immediately put his hands up and said: ‘Look, I’m entirely responsible, or the club is entirely responsible, for this.’ I think he’d done a lot of good work putting the club together previously because there had been a lot of internal problems …

DT Sorry to interrupt but did he put his hands up and say ‘I am entirely responsible’?

OP He said: ‘It’s my fault.’

Sir Oliver Popplewell said he did not intend to read Bradford fire survivor Martin Fletcher’s book. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

DT Having looked through thousands upon thousands of words, I haven’t seen that anywhere.

OP He accepted responsibility; it was made clear at the inquiry that he was accepting responsibility.

DT Are you surprised there was never a prosecution?

OP No, because the truth is it was no better no worse than any other ground. The truth is the local authority had told them to do something about it and hadn’t pursued it. It was an accident waiting to happen but it was an accident.

DT The thing that has made everyone stand back a little bit is that question: can any man be so unlucky? Even his son has said if there was a plume of smoke in Bradford that people would say, ‘That’s Stafford’s gaff’.

OP I can understand.

DT I spoke to one man [long-time Bradford supporter Patsy Hollinger] who said Heginbotham’s nickname was ‘Central Heating’. A phrase at the company where Martin Fletcher’s mother worked was if Stafford has a problem it ‘gets torched’ and there’s a fireman quoted in the book who says that when they were on fire strike they knew the first fire would be Stafford Heginbotham’s.

OP Well, it’s surprising that all these people remained totally silent for 30 years. The truth is if there had been anything sinister he would never have got any insurance.

DT What would be your advice to the author?

All praise to him for doing a lot of very good investigation. I just think the conclusion is wrong Sir Oliver Popplewell

OP I don’t have any. All praise to him for getting over the emotion and doing a lot of very good investigation. I just think the conclusion is wrong. I know he doesn’t say ‘Heginbotham set fire to it’ but that’s the conclusion.

DT A few years ago you said Hillsborough families should just …

OP Move on.

DT Yes, but they didn’t and, as we stand now, we know they were right. Everything has come out now that has given them justice. They didn’t take your advice and found justice.

OP I don’t want to get involved in Hillsborough because last time it caused so much upset in Liverpool.

DT But what I’m saying is you’re telling Martin Fletcher pretty much the same thing – ‘move on’.

OP I’m not. I’m not. Not unreasonably, if someone suggests the integrity of the inquiry was totally invalid, I am entitled to say what I think about the conclusion. Good luck to him but I think I’m entitled to say what I think of it.

DT He makes the point you were in your third year as a high court judge and, by your own admission, had never been to a football match. Do you accept his view it could have gone to someone with more experience?

OP The football part of it is irrelevant in one sense. We all have to try cases about which we know not very much. I know a good deal about sport generally and I’ve tried a lot of fire cases. I don’t know how one gets selected for these things but, if you’re asked to do it, you do it.

Before the interview Popplewell had sent a letter to the Guardian

DT Your letter to the Guardian calls Bradford’s ground ‘Villa Parade’

OP Valley Parade – I’ve corrected it since …

DT The letter also says – and I think you said the same earlier when talking to me – that the fire started after half-time.

OP Yes.

DT But it didn’t. It started at 3.40pm and took hold at 3.42pm.

OP I thought they had just got into the second half … actually, at half-time.

DT I don’t mean to sound impudent but it was 3.40pm. Your commenting [on Fletcher’s book] and your voice, as I said earlier, carries great power … but just basic facts. I’m not sure Mr Heginbotham ever said ‘this is all my fault’ either.

OP Yes, he did. At the inquiry he put his hand up and said: ‘I accept responsibility.’

DT Well, on this point, it wasn’t after half-time.

OP It wasn’t before half-time.

DT It was.

OP Well, I am surprised, but there we are. If that’s [correct] … I will change it to ‘at or about half-time’.

DT My point was, I would have expected you to know that automatically.

OP Oh, come on.

DT It’s a pretty major fact, surely.

OP No, why?

DT I just thought you would know the timings of when it was.

OP Well, it’s just my mistaken recollection. I thought it was just after half-time. It was always that there was only another 40 minutes to play before the thing was being pulled down.

DT The criticism, have you been stung by it?

OP I don’t mind somebody saying ‘I don’t agree’ but to suggest we were hopeless and attack the integrity of the inquiry I do resent. I’m used to being criticised. There are slings and arrows, which one takes normally. But nobody has explained how Heginbotham arranged the fire at the time that he did. What is the explanation? What is the suggestion – that someone deliberately threw a match down?

DT In today’s age would an inquiry like this last a lot longer?

OP It all depends on the evidence. You can have an inquiry like the Saville inquiry that goes on for five years. It all depends what you are investigating. The public evidence took a comparatively short time but we then did some more. It never occurred to us we were unduly hasty. We obviously wanted to get on with it, partly because the people of Bradford needed to be assured how this happened and secondly to try to prevent it happening again.

DT You say there should be an investigation into Heginbotham’s other fires.

OP Only because of the speculation.

DT Have you contacted anyone about this?

OP No … people have been asking me: ‘Do you think it is sensible?’ Of course it is sensible because it will put people’s minds at rest. Frankly, if nobody thought, during that period of eight or nine fires, that there was anything sinister I don’t suppose they will find anything now. They may do. I may be proved quite wrong but I should be absolutely astonished.