Hillsborough Inquest – the case
At 11am, a jury of six women and three men will deliver their verdict on what events led to the deaths of 96 Liverpool fans over 27 years ago at Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield.
The jury, which has been hearing evidence for the last two years since the hearing began on 1 April 2014, must answer 14 questions to decide, among other things, whether the 96 people were unlawfully killed by gross negligence manslaughter.
The two questions that will have most focus will be:
Question 6: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Question 7: Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
If your answer to the question above is ‘no’, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
If your answer to either of the questions above is ‘yes’, then was that behvaiour unusual or unforeseeable? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
In the question of unlawful killing, the coroner, Sir John Goldring, has told the jury that they must be sure that “David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of these 96 people.”
He added: “When answering this question, we are looking at Mr Duckenfield’s conduct and his responsibility.”
Goldring has explained that the jury would consider the crucial order by Duckenfield at 2.52pm to open an exit gate and allow a large number of supporters into the Leppings Lane end, while not taking steps to close off a tunnel leading to the central pens where the lethal crush then happened.
Explaining the legal definition of gross negligence manslaughter to the jury, Goldring said they would have to be satisfied that Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the people attending the match. They would then have to be sure that he breached that duty of care by his actions or failures, including in the preparation for the match, and then that if there were such breaches, they caused the 96 deaths.
The jury has reached unanimous conclusions for 13 of the questions and a majority decision on the 14th.
This page will be updated as the verdicts come in.
What a disgraceful decison, so now its ok for thousands of drunken fans to turn up and rush the gates to force entry. Unbelieveable.
Well the where there is blame there is a claim ambulance chasers will be in their element.
How can Steve Paul justify describing this as a disgraceful decision? My only area of mild surprise is the jury’s response to question 7 as a straight “no”. for ref; Question 7: Was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If your answer to the question above is ‘no’, then was there any behaviour on the part of football supporters which may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. If your… Read more »
Steve Paul – did you not read or hear the reports following this decision? There was no evidence of “thousands of drunken fans turning up to rush the gates” and safety professionals should focus on evidence and not discredited reporting from the time. The facts that did bring this decision about, are the scandalous and possibly criminal perjury and lies by the police and others directly involved on the day. Lessons were not learned from previous incidents and the fact that police knew of these incidents and then tried to cover their ineptitude through lying for over 20 years is… Read more »
I caught my breath, and had to take time before composing this, in view of the first comment here. Either ‘steve paul’ is being deliberately and distastefully provocative, or has been locked in a very closed mind for the last (at least) 4 years since the independent inquiry in 2012. One might expect to see this type of comment in a popular newspaper forum – but not in a specialist H&S journal such as SHP where the readership is (I thought) trained, intelligent and thoughtful health and safety practitioners. Disgraceful is a term I would apply to the comment. The… Read more »
Appalling first comment.
I wonder who this really was posted by – doesnt seem viable that it was a real H&S practitioner.
On the topic of “money” then bear in mind that the police wanted to send Sheffield Wednesday a bill for “policing” the match (they didn’t but they thought about it), and Sheffield Wednesday club asked the FA for financial help as “the disaster has cost the club dearly”. This is a club with legal responsibilities which didn’t even have a safety certificate.