Hillsborough - Trial of David Duckenfield has been unable to reach a verdict, Graham Mackrell found guilty
-
Monkey Man
- Member
- Joined in 2008
Update 1
27th April 2016 - South Yorkshire police chief suspended - http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... gh-verdict
Update 2
5th May 2016 - Media officer employed by force says she was instructed to emphasise allegations of fans’ misbehaviour to press - http://www.theguardian.com/football/201 ... h-inquests
Update 3
12th January 2017 -
Hillsborough suspect files passed to Crown Prosecution Service
Files on 23 people and organisations involved in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster have been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.
An inquests jury concluded last April that the 96 victims of the FA Cup semi-final tragedy were unlawfully killed.
The jury found match the commander, Ch Supt David Duckenfield, responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence.
Prosecutors will now decide whether to bring criminal charges against the unnamed 23.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-38582111
Update 4
28th June 2017
David Duckenfield charged with manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 people. For legal reasons, Mr Duckenfield cannot be charged over the death of the 96th victim Tony Bland, as he died fours years after the disaster, prosecutors said. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must apply to the High Court to lift an order imposed after he was prosecuted privately in 1999, which must be removed before he can be charged.
Former Chief Constable Norman Bettison is charged with four offences of misconduct in public office relating to telling alleged lies about his involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough and the culpability of fans.
Graham Henry Mackrell, who was Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s company secretary and safety officer at the time, is charged with two offences of contravening a term of condition of a safety certificate contrary to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and one offence of failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may have been affected by his acts or omissions at work under the Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974. These offences relate to alleged failures to carry out his duties as required.
Peter Metcalf, who was the solicitor acting for the South Yorkshire Police during the Taylor Inquiry and the first inquests, is charged with doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice relating to material changes made to witness statements.
Former Chief Superintendent Donald Denton is charged with doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice relating to material changes made to witness statements.
Former Detective Chief Inspector Alan Foster is charged with doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice relating to material changes made to witness statements.
The defendants, other than David Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington Magistrates’ Court on 9 August 2017.
Update 5
Hillsborough trial: No verdict over David Duckenfield
The jury in the trial of Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield has been unable to reach a verdict.
Former Ch Supt Duckenfield, now 74, had denied the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans in the 1989 disaster.
Lawyers for Mr Duckenfield have said they will oppose an application from prosecutors for a retrial.
Ex-Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell was found guilty of a health and safety charge.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has said it will seek a retrial for Mr Duckenfield, of Ferndown, Dorset.
But lawyers for the former South Yorkshire Police officer said they would apply for a "stay of proceedings" to prevent another trial.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-m ... e-47800960
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsborough inquests: What you need to know - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-35383110
12min video-
David Conn analyses the evidence with the help of recently released footage from the day, to build a picture of how 96 Liverpool supporters died at the Sheffield stadium, and how it has taken so long for the truth of their story to emerge
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/vide ... are_btn_tw
Hillsborough Inquests: The questions the jury will have to consider
1. Basic facts of the disaster: Do you agree with the following statement: "Ninety-six people died as a result of the disaster at the Hillsborough stadium on 15 April 1989 due to crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the stadium through exit gates."
A) Yes.
2. Police planning for the semi-final match: Was there any error or omission in police planning or preparation which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match?
A) Yes - the jury feels there were major omissions in 1989 operational order.
3. Policing of the match and the situation at the turnstiles: Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?
A) Yes. Police response to the increasing crowd at Leppings Lane was slow and uncoordinated. The road closure and sweep of fans exacerbated the situation. No filter cordons were place. No contingency plans were made for the sudden arrival of a large number of fans.
Attempts to close the perimeter gates were made too late.
4. Policing of the match and the crush on the terrace: Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace?
A) Yes - Commanding officers should have ordered closing of central tunnel.
5. The opening of the gates: When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace?
A) Yes. Commanding officers did not inform officers in the inner concourse prior to the opening of Gate C. Commanding Officers failed to consider where fans would go. Commanding officers failed to order the closure of the central tunnel prior to the opening of gate C.
6. Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
A) Yes.
7. Behaviour of the supporters: Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? If yes was that behaviour unusual or unforseeable?
A) No.
8. Defects in Hillsborough stadium: Were there any features of its design, construction and layout which were dangerous or defective and which probably or may have caused or contributed to the disaster?
A) Yes.
9. Licensing and oversight of the stadium: Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster?
A) Yes.
10. Conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC before the day of the match: Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi final match on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation which developed on the day of the match?
A) Yes.
11. Conduct of Sheffield Wednesday FC on the day of the match: Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace?
A) No.
Was there any error or omission by SWFC and its staff on 15 April 1989 which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace? Yes or no.
A) Yes. Club officials were aware huge number of fans were still outside the ground at 2.40 and should have requested delay in kick-off.
12. Conduct of Eastwood and Partners (SWFC engineers): Should they have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of the stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster?
A) Yes. Eastwood & Partners, the club’s consultant engineers, did not make their own calculations when they became consultants for the club. Therefore the initial capacity figures and all subsequent calculations were incorrect.
Eastwood & Partners failed to recalculate capacity figures each time changes were made to the terraces. It failed to update the safety certificate after 1986.
13. Emergency response and the role of South Yorkshire Police: After the crush in the West Terrace had begun to develop was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster?
A) Yes. Police delayed to call major incident - it meant appropriate emergency response was delayed.
14. Emergency response and the role of South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service (SYMAS): After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service SYMAS which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster?
A) Yes. SYMAS failed to ascertain the nature of the problem at Leppings Lane. The failure to recognise and call a major incident led to delays in response to the emergency.
All answers were unanimous from the 9 person Jury except Question 6 which was 7-2.
What happens now?
Criminal charges will now be considered against those who failed the 96 Liverpool fans unlawfully killed at Hillsborough .
The damning verdict - delivered just after 11am - paved the way for new action as jurors found the victims were dramatically let down by those charged with ensuring their safety.
They include match commander David Duckenfield after the jury found his actions caused the deaths and amounted to “gross negligence”.
As the truth was finally revealed the Crown Prosecution Service said it will now “formally” consider criminal investigations.
Speaking after the verdicts of the nine-person panel were delivered to cheers in a packed courtroom Sue Hemming, head of the special crime division at the CPS, said: “The CPS will formally consider whether any criminal charges should be brought against any individual or corporate body based upon all the available evidence, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.”
Among those slammed for the actions were match commander David Duckenfield, South Yorkshire Police, the South Yorkshire Ambulance Service and ground engineers Eastwood and Partners.
Jurors found each of those held some responsibility for the tragedy, as well as Sheffield Wednesday - which “did not approve the plans for dedicated turnstiles to each pen”.
It was ruled the club did not agree contingency plans with police and there was inaccurate information on the tickets.
While the inquests are now over , the criminal investigation Operation Resolve is still looking at the events leading up to the day of the disaster and the disaster itself.
The Independent Police Complaint Commission (IPCC) is also investigating the aftermath of the disaster - as well as managing elements of the Operation Resolve investigation related to the actions of the police.
The CPS statement is significant as any prosecutions which come as a result of the inquests or investigations will be their responsibility.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liv ... w-11243424
Statements from the CPS, IPCC and Operation Resolve following Hillsborough inquests verdict
Following the conclusion of the Hillsborough inquests, the following statements have been issued on behalf of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), Operation Resolve and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS):
Sue Hemming, Head of the Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division at the CPS said: "Following the inquest's determinations the CPS team will continue to work closely with Operation Resolve and the IPCC as in due course, the CPS will formally consider whether any criminal charges should be brought against any individual or corporate body based upon all the available evidence, in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
"We would ask that everyone is mindful of the continuing investigations and the potential for future criminal proceedings when reporting or publicly commenting on the inquest's conclusions."
IPCC Deputy Chair, Rachel Cerfontyne, said: "The conclusion of the inquests is another milestone and a day when my thoughts are with the families and friends of those who died as a result of the disaster.
"Now the inquests have ended our role in providing documents and other material to support the Coroner is over. However the end of the inquests does not mark the end of the process.Our attention now focuses on concluding our criminal investigation into the aftermath of the disaster. This is by far the biggest and most complex investigation ever undertaken by the IPCC.
"We have made significant progress on the investigation and we will continue to work closely with Operation Resolve and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue our remaining lines of enquiry as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. I anticipate we will conclude the criminal investigations by the turn of the year."
The Officer in Overall Command of Operation Resolve, Assistant Commissioner Jon Stoddart, said: "Today is a day for the families. They have fought hard for many years for these new inquests and today brings an end to this particular part of their journey. My thoughts and those of my team are with the families and friends of the 96 as they take stock of what has happened over the past two years at the court in Warrington and begin to understand the determinations of the jury.
"For the past two years, my team has supported the Coroner, Sir John Goldring, and provided him with thousands of documents, witness statements and reports to assist him in conducting these inquests. While completing this task, my team has also been carrying out a criminal investigation.
"Now that the inquests have concluded my sole focus is on completing the criminal investigation which I expect will be finished by the turn of the year. It will then be for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider the evidence and decide whether any individual or organisation should face criminal prosecution."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/ ... t_verdict/
Last edited by Monkey Man on Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:27 pm, edited 15 times in total.
-
Mafro
- Moderator
- Joined in 2008
- AKA: based
- Contact:
-
Skippy
- Member
- Joined in 2008
