UK - Hillsborough, Inquest into the deaths of 96 people at the FA Cup semi-final game, 1989 mistrial

[Legally Bland]

Might have to be careful on this one.
__________________

Press release

Media advisory notice - Hillsborough proceedings
The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP wishes to draw attention to the requirement not to publish material, including online, which could jeopardise the defendants’ right to a fair trial

Published 29 June 2018
From:
Attorney General's Office and The Rt Hon Jeremy Wright MP

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP

Criminal proceedings against six individuals arising out of the investigations into the tragic events at Hillsborough on the 15th of April 1989 and its aftermath are currently active. The first of three criminal trials is due to start in 10 weeks’ time.

The Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC MP wishes to draw attention to the requirement not to publish material, including online, which could create a substantial risk that the course of justice in these proceedings may be seriously impeded or prejudiced, thereby jeopardising the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

In particular, the Attorney General draws attention to the requirement not to publish material that asserts or assumes, expressly or implicitly, the guilt of any of those who face trial, whether in relation to the events of the 15th of April 1989 or to subsequent events. That is an issue to be determined solely by the three juries on the evidence that they hear in court.

The risks may also arise by commentary which prejudges issues that witnesses may give evidence about or which asserts or assumes wrongdoing on the part of organisations by whom the defendants were employed.

The Attorney General’s Office will be monitoring the coverage of these proceedings.

Editors, publishers and social media users should take legal advice to ensure they are in a position to fully comply with the obligations they are subject to under the Contempt of Court Act.

They are also reminded of the terms of the order made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 by Sir Peter Openshaw DL on 29th June 2018.

Media advisory notice - Hillsborough proceedings

 

[JerseyGirl]

Jury selection begins in trial of Hillsborough chief

74-year-old former police chief superintendent David Duckenfield sat in the well of the court alongside former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell, who is charged with contravening the stadium's safety certificate and a health and safety offence, as proceedings began in Preston Crown Court.

 

[Legally Bland]

09:55 JOE THOMAS
Live updates to be provided from court every day the trial sits
Once the trial opens the ECHO will be providing live updates from the courtroom. This will be the case every day the court is in session.


11:39
Judge enters court and legal preparations begin
The judge, Sir Peter Openshaw, has entered the courtroom, which is Court Room One at Preston Crown Court.

In the court this morning are the associated legal teams for all three parties, the Crown, Duckenfield and Mackrell.

Both defendants are sat at the back of the court.


11:39
Selection of the jury
Sir Peter will now oversee the selection of the jury for this case.

A panel of 100 potential jurors has been gathered.

They will be asked to go through a series of questions, their answers to which will determine whether they are suitable for the panel.


11:39
Potential jurors enter the court
With 100 jurors to select from, this initial process is taking place in front of a restricted press and public, so that everyone can fit in the court.

There are seven members of the press and 14 family members seated in the press gallery.

The jurors are throughout the court, including in the dock and the public gallery, as they listen to Sir Peter.


11:40 KEY EVENT
Case could last up to four months
Sir Peter introduces himself and the case.

Sir Peter: “Public opinion in this country strongly suggests a system of trial by jury, particularly in serious cases.”

He says the summons jurors have received suggest juries typically sit for two weeks but that it can be longer in some cases.

He says this is an “important case which might last three/four months”.

He says he expects the case to be concluded by May 10 at the latest.


11:45
Jury Questions
Jury Questions - he opens with whether potential jurors were present at the FA Cup semi-final at which the tragedy unfolded.

The questions that the 100 potential jurors have to answer are now being read to the court.

The judge has said the press can report these.

There are 18 questions in all.

In summary, they include: Were you, or any close relatives or friends, present at the match, or are you a close friend or relative of anyone who was killed?


11:49
Questions continued
Potential jurors also being asked:

• Are you/have you, or any close friends or relatives involved/been involved in any campaigns associated with Hillsborough?
• Are you, or are any close friends or family, (or have you/they been) fans of Liverpool FC, Everton FC, Nottingham Forest or Sheffield Wednesday?

11:51
Do you live in or near Ormskirk or Skelmersdale?
Potential jurors also being asked:

• Have they, or do they know anyone, who was a student of, or employed by, Edge Hill University between 1984-2003?
• Do you, or do any close friends or family, live in or near Ormskirk or Skelmersdale?
• Do you know, or do you know anyone, who knows the defendants or their family or friends
• Are you, have you, or do you have any relatives/close friends who are or have been employed by the police?
• The same question, in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service, Independent Police Complaints Commission, Health and Safety Executive or Independent Office for Police Conduct?
• And the same question, this time in relation to the Football Association, Sheffield Wednesday FC and Sheffield City Council?
• Are you aware of anything that may prevent you returning “independent and impartial” verdicts?

11:59
Health, holiday and education questions
More questions for potential jurors:

• Do you suffer any physical condition that may adversely affect your ability to sit in court throughout this case?
• Do you suffer any mental illness or condition that may adversely affect your ability to hear this case?
• Are you in business of your own, or genuinely irreplaceable to your work?
• Is there any other personal reason, such as childcare, which may affect your ability to hear the case?
• Do you have any pre-booked holidays during this period?
• Are you in full time education?
• Do you have any important appointments that can not be rescheduled?
• Is there any other point that want to make?

12:00
Witness list read out to potential jurors
Following those 18 questions, the jury was read a list of witnesses - they have been asked to make the court aware if they know or are connected to any of them.

For many of those questions jurors are asked to detail their connection to the people/companies listed.

After the witnesses were listed, but before the potential jurors were sent out, the judge asked them not to do any research over the Hillsborough tragedy.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[JerseyGirl]

Hillsborough police chief goes on trial for manslaughter

 

[Legally Bland]

From yesterday (Day 1):

15:52 KEY EVENT

Panel to be selected from 32 potential jurors

The judge has returned to court and has asked for those potential jurors not ruled out by their answers to the questionnaire to be present. Of the 100 the court started with, 68 have been excused. That leaves 32.


The judge thanks them for their attendance and has asked then to “reflect” on their position overnight. He has asked them to make any further submissions about their position in the morning. After that he hopes to select, by ballot, 14 jurors to sit through the opening of the case.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Day 2


Jury Selection

10:24 KEY EVENT

Day Two - good morning

Good morning, I’m Joe Thomas, the Liverpool ECHO crime reporter, and I’m at Preston Crown Court today as preparations for the trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell continues.



10:25

How Day One ended

For those of you who were following yesterday you will know that the day ended with 32 potential jurors left from a starting group of 100. This morning the judge will receive any submissions those 32 wish to submit over their ability to sit on this case.



10:25

How the jury selection process will continue

Once any further possible jurors are excused, or at least those remaining are confirmed as being in a position to sit on the panel, 14 people will be selected through a random ballot. Those 14 will then sit at the start of the case.



11:14

Jury selection

The court is in session, with Judge Openshaw and the relevant parties in court. A jury panel has now been selected and is currently being sworn in.


11:14

Jury sworn in

A jury of seven men and seven women has now been sworn in to hear the trial.


They were balloted at random. The 14 member panel will sit through the opening of the case.



11:19

Jury panel includes two reserves

Of those 14 jurors, two effectively sit in reserve. So a jury of 12 will ultimately hear the case, with two of those selected being excused when the judge deems it appropriate.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Indictment for David Godfrey Duckenfield

11:24

Indictment read to court

The indictment is now being read to the jury. This is the charge read to them in relation to Duckenfield


DAVID GODFREY DUCKENFIELD between the 15th day of April 1989 and the 18th day of April 1989,


He unlawfully killed by gross negligence the 95 persons named in the appendix to this count in that:-


i. As Match Commander he owed a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of those attending the Hillsborough Stadium as spectators in respect of the serious and obvious risk of death arising from overcrowding and consequent crushing.


ii. In breach of that duty of care, he failed to take reasonable care:


a. to identify particular potential confining points and hazards to the safe entry of approximately 24,000 spectators arriving from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough into the designated sections of the stadium;


b. to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators yet to enter within the stadium from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough;


c. in good time, to take action to relieve crowding pressures on and from spectators seeking entry to the stadium from the Leppings Lane area of Hillsborough;


d. to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators in pens three and four;


e. in good time, to prevent crushing to persons in pens three and four by the flow of spectators through the central tunnel.


iii. That breach of duty amounted to gross negligence.


iv. That negligence was a substantial cause of the death of the 95 persons named in the appendix to this Count.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Names of the deceased related to the indictment

11:26

Names of the 95 fans the count relates to read to the court

The names of the 95 Liverpool fans who the manslaughter allegation relates to are now being read to the court, one by one. The court listens in silence.


In order, they are:


Jon-Paul Gilhooley

Adam Edward Spearritt

Lee Nicol

Paul Brian Murray

Philip Hammond

Thomas Anthony Howard

Kevin Daniel Williams

Kevin Tyrrell

Peter Andrew Harrison

Philip John Steele

Victoria Jane Hicks

Kester Roger Marcus Ball

Martin Kevin Traynor

Nicholas Michael Hewitt

Carl Darren Hewitt

Graham John Wright

Henry Charles Rogers

Keith McGrath

Simon Bell

Stephen Francis O’Neill

Steven Joseph Robinson

Stuart Paul William Thompson

Carl Brown

Carl David Lewis

Christopher Barry Devonside

Gary Philip Jones

James Gary Aspinall

John McBrien

Jonathon Owens

Paul Clark

Colin Wafer

Colin Mark Ashcroft

David William Mather

Gary Christopher Church

Ian David Whelan

James Philip Delaney

Paul William Carlile

Sarah Louise Hicks

Gordon Rodney Horn

Ian Thomas Glover

Stephen Paul Copoc

Carl William Rimmer

Joseph Daniel McCarthy

Marian Hazel McCabe

Paul David Brady

Peter Francis Tootle

Peter McDonnell

Thomas Steven Fox

David William Birtle

David John Benson

Gary Collins

Colin Andrew Hugh William Sefton

David Leonard Thomas

Tracey Elizabeth Cox

William Roy Pemberton

Derrick George Godwin

Graham John Roberts

Peter Andrew Burkett

Richard Jones

David Steven Brown

Andrew Mark Brookes

Barry Sidney Bennett

Christopher James Traynor

Paula Ann Smith

Paul Anthony Hewitson

Barry Glover

Christine Anne Jones

Francis Joseph McAllister

Gary Harrison

Nicholas Peter Joynes

Alan McGlone

Alan Johnston

Anthony Peter Kelly

Christopher Edwards

James Robert Hennessy

Joseph James Clark

Martin Kenneth Wild

Peter Reuben Thompson

Stephen Francis Harrison

Eric Hankin

Roy Harry Hamilton

Vincent Michael Fitzsimmons

Patrick John Thompson

Brian Christopher Matthews

David George Rimmer

Inger Shah

Michael David Kelly

David Hawley

Thomas Howard

Arthur Horrocks

Eric George Hughes

Henry Thomas Burke

Raymond Thomas Chapman

John Alfred Anderson

Gerard Bernard Patrick Baron

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Indictment for Graham Henry Mackrell

11:35

Mackrell indictment read to jurors

The two charges Mackrell faces are now read to court


Count One


CONTRAVENING A TERM OR CONDITION OF A SAFETY CERTIFICATE, contrary to section


12(1)(d) of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and by virtue of section 12(7) of the said Act.


PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE


GRAHAM HENRY MACKRELL on the 15th day of April 1989, being the company secretary and a


senior manager of Sheffield Wednesday Plc, consented to or connived at the company’s offence, namely the


contravention of Condition 6(1) of Schedule 2, General Terms and Conditions, of the Safety Certificate in


respect of Hillsborough Stadium, in that being the Holder of the Safety Certificate it failed to agree, prior to


the F.A. Cup semi-final football match of the 15th day of April 1989, with the Chief Constable, or the Police


Officer having charge of the Stadium on the occasion of the said football match, the methods of admission


to be employed in connection with the said football match, in particular, the arrangements of and number of


turnstiles to be used for admission into the west stand terraces and north-west terraces; or the commission of


the said offence by the company was attributable to neglect on his part.


Count Two


FAILURE TO DISCHARGE A DUTY UNDER SECTION 7(a) OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY


AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974, contrary to section 33(1)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.


PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE


GRAHAM HENRY MACKRELL between the 19th day of March 1989 and the 16th day of April 1989,


being an employee at work within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, failed to


take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may have been affected by his acts or


omissions at work, in that, firstly, he:


i. Failed to take reasonable care as the safety officer in respect of arrangements for admission to the


Hillsborough Stadium and particularly in respect of turnstiles being of such numbers as to admit


at a rate whereby no unduly large crowds would be waiting for admission;


ii. Failed to take reasonable care as the safety officer in respect of the drawing up of contingency


plans, in particular, for coping with exceptionally large numbers of spectators arriving at the


ground and to deal with situations where the available entrances at the ground have proved


insufficient to stop unduly large crowds from gathering outside.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Opening address by the Judge

11:44

Judge addressing the jury panel

Sir Peter Openshaw is now speaking to the 14 strong jury panel. He is telling them they must focus solely on the evidence they hear in this court. He adds a warning to them not to make their own inquiries in relation to their deliberations.


“It must be the evidence you hear in this court and only that evidence which should form the basis of the specific decisions you will be asked to make at the end of the trial.”



11:45

What any of you have heard or read or seen in the past is entirely irrelevant to your task

Sir Peter’s overview to the jury continues: “[This case is about Hillsborough] About which there has been a huge amount amount of publicity, some of which you would have heard or seen.


“What any of you have heard or read or seen in the past is entirely irrelevant to your task, which is to decide whether or not the charges laid by the prosecution against these defendants, and which you have read in the jury bundle, whether these charges have been proved by the prosecution by the evidence you hear in court.”



11:50

You decide what happened and whether these charges have been proved

Sir Peter: “You decide what happened and whether these charges have been proved and you do so on what you see and hear in court and nothing else. You may already know and, in any event, you will hear in the course of this case that there have been other inquests and inquiries and, indeed, another trial, into the disaster at Hillsborough. You may hear as evidence in this case some of the evidence given at those inquests or inquiries or that other trial. That evidence is called to assist you to reach a verdict in this case.”



11:53

You must disregard anything you may have heard or read from anyone else

Sir Peter’s address to the jury, continued: “What any other jury found, or what any other inquest found, will not help you to reach a verdict.


And he added: “Many politicians, journalists and countless other informed and uninformed commentators have spoken or written about this disaster but in doing so they were not deciding the specific questions you must decide in this case, nor were they speaking with knowledge of the evidence you will hear in this case.


“Therefore, I tell you in clear terms you must disregard anything you may have heard or read from anyone else and the same, of course, goes to what anyone may write or speak or publish in the future.”



11:57

Jurors warned not to comment about the case online

Jurors are warned by Sir Peter not to do their own research into the tragedy, not to discuss their deliberations outside the panel and not to write or comment about it in any blog or on Twitter or Facebook.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening speech - the case against Duckenfield

12:07

The opening

The jury is now being introduced to the case by Richard Matthews.



12:08

Tony Bland

Mr Matthews explains that, because Mr Bland passed away in 1993, he died after the period through which Mr Duckenfield could be charged.



12:14

Duckenfield’s role

Duckenfield’s role as match commander at the FA Cup semi-final is now being discussed.Mr Matthews says he not only had the “ultimate responsibility” to ensure the safe arrival and accommodation of 50,000 fans at the Hillsborough stadium, but a “personal responsibility” to take reasonable care in the command of those beneath him and in the orders he gave and the decisions he took.



12:19

Duckenfield’s failures to discharge this personal responsibility were “extraordinarily bad”

It is the prosecution’s case that Duckenfield’s failures to discharge this personal responsibility were “extraordinarily bad” and that they contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who “so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives”.



12:23 KEY EVENT

96 fans died through the “wholly innocent” activity of attending a match

Mr Matthews continues:


“Each of those died in the participation of the “wholly innocent” activity of attending a football match on April 15, 1989.


He says they died as result of “obvious and serious risk to life” caused by crushing and linked to poor management of the expected crowd attending.”



12:24

Criminal responsibility

David Duckenfield’s criminal responsibility for the deaths of 95 of those who died flows from his gross failure to discharge his personal responsibility as Match Commander. This was an extraordinarily bad failure to properly consider the planning, the preparation, the roles, the responsibilities and the command of those who, in the event, were left to cope with the results of what was the ill-considered and poorly arranged, but easily identifiable, arrival of very many thousands of people a relatively short time before the scheduled kick-off, to a confined area of limited access; with the consequent uncontrolled, unsupervised and undirected, almost involuntary, forcing of far too many people into a terribly confined space, in circumstances where no one was charged with monitoring numbers for safety and where those in a position to attempt to alleviate the inevitable crush, had been given strict orders to keep access gates onto the pitch closed, only to open them by express command of a senior officer.



12:25

Duckenfield’s duty to the fans

Mr Matthews adds:


“David Duckenfield owed a duty to each of those who died, a duty to take reasonable care to discharge his duties as match commander to ensure the safety of spectators.”



12:26

The Leppings Lane end

The particular area of the ground that was the source of disaster was the Leppings Lane end, where all of the approximately 24,000 Liverpool fans attending the match were to be directed. Almost inevitably, bearing in mind what was in place, but certainly, the prosecution alleges, reasonably foreseeably even obviously, there became pressure to get through what were limited turnstiles serving a bottleneck of a very large crowd.



12:27

Gate C

An exit gate to the stadium, known as Gate C, was opened, and that was following requests for David Duckenfield to do something to alleviate the crush just outside the gates and because of the fears the people would be crushed and injured or killed outside. He did not, at any time, cause the start of the match to be put back with a view to avoiding any crush at the turnstiles nor, thereafter, with a view to calming the understandable desire of the large crowd seeking entry to see the match.



12:29

Pens three and four

Once beyond Gate C, fans were confronted by a prominent sign marked ‘Standing’ above the entrance to a tunnel that led into two pens – fenced enclosures containing no ready exit – they were pens 3 and 4, the central pens just behind the goal. Now, all the 10,100 tickets for the terraces at the Leppings Lane were marked ‘standing’. By the time that David Duckenfield finally acceded to the requests regarding opening the gates, and of the exit Gate C, pens 3 and 4 were already packed.



12:29 KEY EVENT

‘At no time did David Duckenfield do anything to ensure that the capacity of those pens were monitored’

“But at no time during, no time prior or even after the opening of Gate C did David Duckenfield do anything to ensure that the capacity of those pens, which, as you will see, were beneath the police control box, were monitored; that the crowd were directed in any way into emptier pens or that, most importantly, access to the tunnel was stopped or even inhibited to prevent what was the inevitable crush of fans effectively carried down the slope of the Tunnel into the packed pens three and four”



12:31

No thought to consequences

In short, once in and beyond Gate C, the crowd was naturally drawn down the slope of the tunnel and into the confined area of the central pens, and David Duckenfield gave no thought to the inevitable consequence of the flood of people through Gate C nor did he make any attempt to even monitor what was occurring let alone avert the tragedy.



12:31

A significant cause of the deaths

Matthews: “It may be, members of the jury, on the evidence you hear, that some of Chief Supt. Duckenfield’s personal failings in regard to the immediate aftermath of the crushing were also exceptionally bad.


Nonetheless, please make no mistake from the outset, it is the prosecution’s case that his failure to show reasonable care in his role as Match Commander prior to 3.05pm, when that crushing had already occurred, that that was a significant cause of the deaths – his failings substantially led to the pressure of crushing in pens 3 and 4 that caused the fatal injuries to all those whose lives were lost.


And it is the Prosecution’s case that his failures in that regard amounted to the gross breach of his duty of care that he owed to each of those who lost their lives.”



12:32

The prosecution case

Matthews explains the charge on the indictment against David Duckenfield, therefore, is one of manslaughter by gross negligence. He says it is the prosecution’s case then that David Duckenfield is guilty of the crime of the manslaughter.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening speech - the case against Mackrell

12:32

The jury is now being given an overview of the case against Mackrell

He was Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s safety officer and was in a position of responsibility for managing how the club followed the safety guidance in what was known as the Green Guide – A Home Office publication entitled ‘Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Football)’.



12:32

The safety certificate

Matthews explains the Hillsborough Stadium was granted a Safety Certificate in 1979 by Sheffield County Council. It set out conditions, including some to ensure the safe operation of the stadium for large crowds.



12:33

Charge against Mackrell

“The charge against Mr Mackrell concerns one of the Club’s breaches of its Safety Certificate conditions on the 15th April 1989. The prosecution’s case is that the particular condition was one that required the club to agree, prior to that F.A. cup semi-final football match of the 15th of April 1989, with the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or with the police officer in charge of the stadium on the day of the event, required the club to agree the methods of entry into the stadium and the prosecution allege this meant the arrangements of and number of turnstiles to be used for admission into the West Stand terraces and the north-west terraces.”



12:33 KEY EVENT

Prosecution: Mackrell turned ‘blind eye’ to duty

“It is the prosecution case that Mr Mackrell committed a criminal offence by agreeing to, or at the very least, turning a ‘blind eye’, or by causing through neglect of his duty, this breach by the club of this condition.”



12:33

Mackrell’s role

Matthews said Mackrell joined the club as secretary at the end of 1986, and in October 1987 he wrote to Sheffield City Council asking them to amend their records to record how he was responsible for all aspects of safety within the ground as the club’s Safety Officer



12:34

Criticisms of stadium structure

“You will hear as some of the background to the disaster in 1989, criticisms of the structure of the stadium and the features of the inside of the stadium, such as the signage. None of the failings in this regard are alleged by the prosecution to have been caused by or to be the fault of Graham Mackrell – they all were put in place before he arrived at the club. However, they do form, the prosecution say, an important backdrop to the allegations that Graham Mackrell faces.”



12:38

Allegations v Mackrell

Matthews: “So the second charge on the indictment against Mr Mackrell is one that alleges thathe failed to take reasonable care as the Club’s Safety Officer for the health and safety of those affected by how he carried out that job.”

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening speech - summary of charges

12:38

Green Guide guidance

Matthews: “Now this concerns two particular important aspects of the guidance in that Green Guide, the guide to safety, namely the arrangements for admission to the Hillsborough Stadium and particularly in respect of taking care to see that the turnstiles were sufficient to admit spectators at a rate where no unduly large crowds. would be waiting outside those turnstiles for admission; and secondly, in respect of the drawing up of contingency plans, for coping where the available entrances at a ground have proved insufficient to stop an unduly large crowd from gathering outside. In other words, having a plan in case the arrangements for entry go wrong and having a plan about what to do to cope with lots of people waiting to get in.”



12:41

‘More than minimal contribution’

Matthews says David Duckenfield had both an “ultimate and a personal responsibility” for the policing operation in respect of the safety of those attending the match and, in particular, a personal responsibility to take reasonable care in respect of the risk of death from crushing that was present throughout.


He said: “Whatever any witness may suggest in this court as to what else may have contributed to cause that fatal pressure in pens 3 and 4, David Duckenfield’s failures made a more than minimal contribution – whatever else contributed to the tragedy, David Duckenfield’s failures played a significant role in causing the deaths.”



12:47

What the prosecution have to prove

Matthews: “Deciding whether the charges have been proven by the prosecution on the evidence you hear is a task that you will only begin when you have heard all the evidence and been directed by his Lordship, but at that time, you will only be required to decide those facts that are necessary to your decision on whether each of the charges is proved.”


“The charge of manslaughter against David Duckenfield of those 95 named people requires the prosecution to prove to you that David Duckenfield’s gross negligence caused their deaths. Now, there is no issue between the prosecution and David Duckenfield about how the 95 people lost their lives and in due course you will be provided with some agreed facts, they are agreed by all the parties in this case, concerning this.


Each of those who lost their lives died as a result of crushing in pens 3 and 4 from the pressure of the number of people entering those pens.


“That is not disputed by David Duckenfield.


“What the prosecution have to prove is that David Duckenfield’s extraordinarily bad failings to do his job on that day, in other words to discharge his responsibility, made a significant contribution to causing that fatal crushing.”


“That does not mean either that no one else or no other factor or circumstance, including those outside his control, played a part in causing the crushing to occur, only that David Duckenfield’s failures made a more than minimal contribution.”


12:50

Matthews - now summarises:

“We don’t call evidence to prove everything about the tragedy, only what is necessary and relevant to your ultimate decision as to whether each of the charges have been proved.

“There is no dispute about what caused the deaths of 95 persons that David Duckenfield is charged with the manslaughter of – everyone agrees that they died as a result of the crush in pens 3 and 4. We are are not calling evidence to prove that David Duckenfield’s failings were the only cause of that crush only that David Duckenfield’s exceptionally bad failings were a substantial cause - they played a more than minimal part in leading to the crush.”

12:51

Court adjourns for lunch

The session will resume at 2pm.


Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

14:11

Back in court for afternoon session

Hello everyone, we are now back in court for the afternoon session. Mr Matthews will continue with the prosecution opening shortly.



Prosecution opening speech - general

14:28

Geography of Hillsborough stadium

The jury is currently being shown images of the ground, with key areas highlighted to them.



14:28

Third largest club ground in England

Matthews: In 1989 Hillsborough was the third largest club football ground in England


with a claimed capacity of 54,324 Only Arsenal (Highbury) and Manchester Utd (Old Trafford) had greater capacity.


He is pointing out how Hillsborough is in a residential area and does not sit prallel to the surrounding terraced streets.


As a result, he says, at the Leppings Lane end, the turnstiles were located in a relatively


confined area directly behind the West Stand.


This is where all the spectators for the West Stand, West Terraces, North West Terrace, and North Stand had to pass before they entered the stadium itself.



14:41

Ground plan in 1979 safety certificate

We now see the plan of the ground on the club’s safety certificate, granted in 1979, followed by a 1987 plan drawn up by Eastwood and Partners.


We now see a third stadium plan.


Mr Matthews is using this to point out where the perimeter gates are, the turnstiles and the location of the ground in comparison to its surroundings.



14:41

Ground video shown to jurors

The jury is now watching a short explainer video setting out images of Hillsborough stadium, detailing where Liverpool and Nottingham Forest fans were allocated tickets for in 1989 and showing computer generated and real images of the key areas. These areas include the police control box and the Leppings Lane turnstiles.



14:41

Signage at the Leppings Lane end shown to jurors

Now, the jurors are seeing the turnstile allocation for fans attending the FA Cup semi-final and relevant attendances for different parts of the ground. Jurors’ attention is also being drawn to signage at the Leppings Lane turnstiles.



14:48

Leppings Lane terraces

The next image is of the police control box at Hillsborough, which is at the end of the West Stand. Mr Matthews points out the upper tier of the West Stand is seated, while the bottom tier is the terrace. He points out some of the pens within that terrace, the radial fencing that divides the pens, and the exit of the central tunnel onto those pens.



14:59

Focus on the terraces continues

We are still focused on the Leppings Lane terrace at the moment. Mr Matthews is moving into more detail, using a computer generated image of how the area looked in 1989 to highlight pitch perimeter fences and gates between certain pens.



15:12

‘Nothing extraordinary’ about 1989 FA Cup semi-final

Mr Matthews is now taking the court through how different sets of turnstiles at Hillsborough related to different areas of the ground, and how the turnstiles were used when Sheffield Wednesday played at the ground.


The West Terrace and NW Terrace was typically reserved for away fans and typically accessed by the Leppings Lane turnstiles.


Mr Matthews says there was “nothing extraordinary” about the 1989 FA Cup semi final. He says a year earlier Liverpool and Notts Forest met at the same ground for an FA Cup semi final, and were allocated the same areas.



15:17

‘Walk through’ the Leppings Lane turnstiles played to jurors

Nottingham Forest had the Spion Kop and the South Stand in 1989.


We now see a continuation of the ‘opening’ video.


The court is looking at the Leppings Lane turnstiles, and the areas they gave access to.


Exit Gates A.B and C are pointed out, as well as the Central Tunnel, in an aerial shot of the ground.


A computer generated image of the turnstiles at the Leppings Lane end is now shown. It includes the outer perimeter gate and the exit gates.


The shot pans in and effectively takes the viewer through the turnstiles and into the Central Tunnel, showing what it would look like if you entered the Leppings Lane end and the West Terrace in 1989, though while the stadium is empty.



15:33

Matchday tickets and signage

Attention now moves to signage. We see images of a sample of the matchday tickets for the Leppings Lane turnstiles.


One ticket reads West Stand, and has Row 26, Seat 91, written on it. It says Entrance C, Gangway X. Mr Matthews says all the tickets for West Stand seating had entrance C marked on them.


We now see a North Stand ticket. That area was all seated and has row, seat numbers on plus Entrance A, Gangway H. All the tickets for the North Stand had Entrance A on them, Mr Matthews says..


On the back of the tickets, wherever they were for, lay the same plan



15:42

Matchday tickets and Leppings Lane access

We are still on matchday tickets, with Mr Matthews taking the jury through how certain turnstiles led to certain areas of the Leppings Lane end.


As an overview the North Stand was accessed by turnstiles 1-10. It’s capacity was 9,882.


The West Stand (also seated, like the north): Turnstiles: 11-16; Capacity 4,465


West/NW Terrace (so standing) Turnstiles A-G; Capacity: 10,100



15:49

Pens three and four and the central tunnel

Having had an overview of the geography of Leppings Lane, Mr Matthews moves onto discuss the pens. He says some saw pens three and four as good viewing points. They were accessed by the Central Tunnel. He says, if you were in pen three and it wasn’t too crowded you could get to pen two through a gate at back of the radial fence that separated them.


Mr Matthews says once inside the Central Tunnel fans walked down a sloped surface - the slope wasn’t constant but fans could see the pitch as they walked down it. Walls made it difficult to see what was immediately to the left and right when you emerged from tunnel onto the terraces.



15:55

Exit gates

The court is now hearing about exit gates A, B and C. They had to meet Green ‘exit flow rates’ identified in the stadium Green Guide. In the event one or all of those gates were fully opened to allow people to enter rather than exit, they would allow a lot more people into the stadium than could pass through turnstile, Mr Matthews says. This was an FA Cup semi final, an all ticket match. In any event what is to bear in mind is, if you use a big exit gate as an entrance ‘a lot of people are going to be able to come through that at a far faster rate than can come through the turnstiles’.



16:01

“No means of escape other than in the direction that any crowd pressure is coming from”

We’ve moved back into pens three and four. A ‘hatched area’, where the Central Tunnel runs out onto the terraces, is pointed out.


Mr Matthews says in the event of a crush on the terrace there is “no means of escape other than in the direction that any crowd pressure is coming from. The way in is through the tunnel. In a crush, the pressure is coming from that direction and the only way out is back against the pressure of that crush.”



16:08

Pen Five

Mr Matthews briefly points out pen five. He says pen five was intended to be a “sterile” area to separate opposing fans and allow police to enter the west terrace.

16:08

Court adjourned

That is the final point that he wishes to make today. The court has been adjourned and we will return at 10.30am tomorrow.


Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[KarenUK]

Thanks for all the updates Legally

 

[Legally Bland]

Day 3

Prosecution opening speech

10:37
Prosecution to continue case opening
The court is preparing for day two of the case, which is due to get underway shortly. This morning will see Richard Matthews, QC, who is prosecuting, continue to open the case.

With Richard Matthews likely to do the bulk of the talking, I’ll refer to him as RM. Where the following is in quotes, that will signal a direct quote from him. If there are no quote marks the following will be an overview/summary of his comments on that matter.

The judge is Sir Peter Openshaw. I’ll make clear when he says anything of note and, of course, will make clear if and when anyone beyond Mr Matthews adds anything of note this morning.


10:37
Judge and jury enter court
Sir Peter has now entered court. He is followed shortly after by the jury. Remember, there are currently 14 members of the jury panel, seven men and seven women. Two are effectively ‘reserve’ jurors, who are likely to be excused at a time when the judge sees relevant.


10:40
Mr Matthews begins the second day of the trial
RM begins by highlighting how SWFC had a ‘club control room’. On the day of the match, April 15, 1989, those inside the club control room included a Mr Lock, in charge of security and a former South Yorks officer. Also a PC Guest watching the ‘club screens’. He had a radio he could use to contact the police control box, which was shown to the jury yesterday. Also in the club control room was Roger Houldsworth. He played a ‘major role’ in the club’s CCTV and electronic turnstile system, Mr Matthews says.


10:44
Fixed CCTV cameras were linked to club control room
RM: At Hillsborough there were 16 fixed cameras at the ground were each linked to a monitor in the club control room.

The jury now see a plan of the monitor lay out in that room.

16 club cameras in fixed positions around the stadium ‘aimed at viewing the turnstiles’ and linked to a video recorder.

Another four cameras were put in as ‘in-fill cameras’ and were there to monitor areas between turnstile and stands - known as ‘reservoir’ areas. They did not record.



10:50
BBC and police ‘evidence gathering teams’ also had cameras at Hillsborough stadium

RM: The jury is being told the BBC had cameras in the ground, but that footage was not available in the club control room or police control box. Two SYP (South Yorkshire Police) evidence gathering teams had handheld cameras. At times they recorded the crowd, though again, that footage was not available in either of the control rooms.


10:50
Five police cameras - including some which had the ability to view the Leppings Lane end
RM: There were five SYP cameras around the ground. Camera 1, had the ability to view Leppings Lane, the LL turnstiles, inner concourse and aspects of the South Stand access road.

Camera 5 gave a view of the Leppings Lane terrace. Cameras 3 and 4 were located on the South Stand. Camera 2 overlooked Penistone Road. Camera 3 recorded colour footage.

RM gives assurances he will explain which camera any footage shown to the jury over the course of the case came from.


10:54
‘Inside’ the police control box at Hillsborough
A video is now being shown to the jury. It places the viewer ‘inside’ the police control box, showing where each monitor was placed and the area it was recording.

There were two video recording devices in the control room.

Two monitors in the box showed what was being recorded on the VCRs.

The SYP cameras had the ability to tilt, pan and zoom. What has been retained to this day is the footage that was recorded on these two VCRs, RM says.


11:05
How the turnstiles were monitored
The video continues. It shows images inside the SWFC control room. Mr Matthews points out one monitor which showed a feed from the police control box. A monitor for the ‘electronic counting system’ is pointed out.

RM: “It was possible to display footage from one of the police cameras in the Club control room. Those in the Club control room could choose which SYP police camera to view but could not control what that camera showed. In other words. the TV set showed whatever the police operator chose to look at.”

The club system had been installed primarily to deter fraud, not for safety reasons: to prevent turnstile operators allowing people in without a ticket for pocketed cash, RM says.

He adds that on each turnstile, an electronic switch recorded when a person went through the turnstile and each turnstile also had an ‘electronic eye’

The electronic eye would be “triggered” if anyone climbed over the turnstile - deemed an ‘illegal entry’.


11:11
Counting system could alert people to when 90% of capacity reached in certain areas of the ground
RM: “The turnstiles were broken up into three zones and the Leppings Lane standing terraces (the west stand terraces and the north-west terraces) amounted to one zone.”

A print out shown to the jury shows how a running total for each zone and turnstile could be gathered.

RM: “The computer calculated each zone’s cumulative count... and when 90% of the capacity, as set out in the safety certificate, was reached, the colour on the screen for that area changed.”

When 90% was reached, turnstiles could be shut down and people directed to areas with spare capacity, RM adds.

RM says at an all-ticket match it was possible to calculate how many were still to come to a certain area.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening

11:18
Inside the police control box
There was an internal SWFC telephone system that could be accessed in the SWFC control box.

Now we look at the police control box.

The jury is shown a view of the Leppings Lane terraces from the police control box.

Large windows gave a ‘good view of the interior of the stadium’, RM tells the court.

RM: The rear section of the Police Control Box was raised.

Three seats are pointed out. On the day, they were for a Superintendent Murray, a Sgt Goddard and a PC Ryan.

There were phone systems in the police control box and a PA system.

The police control box had the ability to override any transmission on the PA system.

The PA system was split into North, South, West and the Kop so you could speak to all four sections of the stadium, or individual areas. You could also speak to the rear of the stands through that PA system.

The jury are told they are likely to hear from a Michael Goddard, then Sgt Goddard, who had ‘considerable experience’ working in the control box at league and FA Cup matches. He was responsible for radio transmission and had worked at the FA Cup QF in 87 and SF in 88.

Radios are ‘incredibly complicated’, RM says.

There were two radio systems that were in operation on 15th April 1989, a UHF and VHF system. Sergeant Goddard dealt with the UHF Channels, which were not recorded. He sometimes used the telephone.

The VHF radio was recorded at Snig Hill which had a police comms room and a RACAL comms data recorder. That recorded the VHF channel. Other people on duty included PC Bishard, PC Ryan and Supt Murray. Supt Murray was in overall control of control room and advisor to Duckenfield.


11:26
Insight into the radio system
The radio system and how officers could be connected to it is being explained to the jury by RM.

He explains how, when on ‘talkthrough’ mode if two people were trying to speak to control, control could only hear one or the message may break up entirely.

Only one person could speak at one time on ‘talkthrough’, which is how the radios typically operated.


11:26
Snig Hill - in Sheffield
At Snig Hill was the SYP force operations room. Attached to it was a ‘major incident room’. That had VHF radio equipment. On April 15 all of that was commanded by Chief Inspector Malcolm Edmundson.

That day he was monitoring both the VHF systems and the UHF frequencies.


11:29
RM sums up the radio situation
“In summary, when it comes to radios – the radio communications between the police control box and those officers on duty in and around the stadium was through a system that was neither recorded nor accessible to every police officer.

But the police control box at Hillsborough also was able to communicate with the SYP station at Snig Hill via a different radio system.

“And it’s that radio system was recorded – you will hear the recordings of some of the radio traffic that passed between the police control box and Snig Hill.

“Now, a few snippets of background radio traffic on the UHF ‘local’ system have been captured on the recordings of the VHF – in other words whilst someone has been transmitting on the VHF in the background snippets of messages, conversations coming over their UHF radio have been recorded by that recorder. “When we play you any of these recordings, we will ensure make clear what it is you are listening to.”


11:33
Chief Inspector McRobbie
Chief Inspector McRobbie is another person the jury will hear from, RM says.

The jury is told he had very little experience in policing football matches. He had just been transferred and wanted to see a semi final match and Mr Duckenfield agreed he could. He was standing in a corner of the control box in civilian clothing. He did not have a radio.


The court has now adjourned for a mid morning break and is due to resume in around 15/20 minutes

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening

11:55
Court resumes with ‘tour’ of the Leppings Lane perimeter gates and turnstiles
Good morning, all parties are back in court and Mr Matthews is once again addressing the jury.

He starts by showing the jury computer generated images of the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

Using the computer generated model of the ground as it was in 1989 he is able to effectively walk through the gates and turnstiles at that end. This is what he is doing, pointing out certain entrances and signs.


11:55
Jurors taken down Central Tunnel and into Leppings Lane pen
RM now moves the tour towards and down the central tunnel onto the Leppings Lane terraces. He takes the jury into Pen Three. Panning to the right you can see the open gate in the fence between pen three and pen two. He then ‘steps’ down the terrace to the front of the pen. He is able to walk through an open gate at the bottom of the pen onto the perimeter of the pitch and ‘look’ back up at the terraces. This means the jurors are getting a view of the terraces as they were on April 15, 1989.


12:00
Inside the Police Control Box
Now we are inside the police control box. You can see a computer generated version of what those inside could view, including where the monitors were placed.

He stands on the gantry of the control box showing the view looking out over the Leppings Lane terraces.

He is now on the North West Terrace before showing the view from Pen Six.

Just to make clear, the computer generated model we are touring through depicts the grounds as if it is empty.


12:01
The Operational Order
Moving away from the virtual tour now, RM continues with the prosecution opening.

He details how the principal document that set out the arrangements for policing the match was the ‘F’ Division (the geographical policing area in which the stadium was located) Operational Order.


12:08
“Chief Superintendent Duckenfield will be in overall command of this event.”
RM introduces the operational order to the jury.

He reads the following section:

“It is the intention of the Police to allow this match to take place and to ensure public order and safety both inside and outside the football ground, to segregate and control opposing fans and prevent unnecessary obstruction of the highway and damage to property. This will be attained and displayed with a high standard of smartness and professionalism.”

Under the heading method, it is written: “Chief Superintendent Duckenfield will be in overall command of this event.”


12:09
Jury expected to hear from an Inspector Sewell
There were separate operational orders, though RM says the jury need not be troubled by that point. An appendix detailing the roles of different officers is being shown to the jury.

One is Inspector Sewell.

RM: We expect that you will hear evidence from Inspector Sewell, who was the liaison officer who took over from Inspector Calvert. He played a part both in the arrangements between the police and the club and the drafting of this Operational Order.


12:20
The 1986 Green Guide - with reference to other stadia tragedies
RM takes the jury through each page of the page of the operational order.

He now moves onto the 1986 Green Guide - for safety of spectators at sports grounds.

It was a voluntary code and had no legal force.

Moving to historical context when this was published in 1986. It refers to tragedies at Ibrox (Rangers) and Valley Parade (Bradford City) as showing that, while rare, disasters at sports grounds had happened in the past.


12:30
Hillsborough’s safety certificate, issued in 1979
Now we look at Hillsborough’s safety certificate.

South Yorks County Council granted this in 1979, RM says.

It is dated 21/12/1979.

SWFC was the holder.

RM explains how the Chief Constable was defined: “Chief Constable means Chief Constable for the time being of the SYP or as the case may require the police officer having charge of the stadium on the occasion of a specified activity”.

• At condition 3: “The number of spectators admitted to the Stadium and to the several areas of spectator accommodation within the Stadium shall not exceed the figures specified in Part 1 of Schedule 3.”

• That was on page 11, which provided the capacity figures.

RM explains how the west terrace figure was 7,200 and the north-west terrace 2,900. There was a separate figure of 4,465 for the upper seating area of the west stand. Total: 50,174

The were the figures calculated by a firm of structural engineers named Eastwoods in January 1979.

The certificate said the holder, the club, should “at all times maintain all structural parts of the stadium in sound order and to the appropriate and relevant standards in the [Green] Guide and in all cases to the satisfaction of the Council (South Yorks CC).”


12:37
Safety Certificate - and the alleged breaches
RM explains Condition 6(1):

The holder should agree with CC

At condition 6 (1), the certificate required the club to agree, prior to an event with the Chief Constable, the “methods of admission to be employed in connection with a Specified Activity [including a football match] and ... the methods to be used for the segregation of home and visiting supporters.”

RM: “I remind you that the prosecution’s case that it’s this particular condition that required the Club to agree, prior to the F.A. cup semi-final football match of the 15th day of April 1989, with either the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, or the Police Officer in charge of the stadium on the day, in other words Mr Duckenfield, the methods of entry into the stadium.”

RM: The prosecution case is this meant the number of turnstiles to be used for admission into the West Stand terraces and north-west terraces.

It is this condition Mr Mackrell is charged with.

The Crown’s case is this condition was breached by club: “either with Graham Mackrell’s agreement, by him turning a blind eye to it, or through his neglect of part of his duties as Safety Officer.”


12:38
Officer Working Party
RM also explains how the Club was the “Holder” of the Certificate and was obliged to comply with its requirements. The local authority would be responsible for issuing the Certificate and overseeing compliance with its terms. The on-going role of the local authority would often involve the local authority seeking advice from what was known as an Officer Working Party.


12:38
Officer Working Party
RM also explains how the Club was the “Holder” of the Certificate and was obliged to comply with its requirements. The local authority would be responsible for issuing the Certificate and overseeing compliance with its terms. The on-going role of the local authority would often involve the local authority seeking advice from what was known as an Officer Working Party.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening

12:45 KEY EVENT
‘Few of those involved with the Safety Certificate appear to have performed their function diligently’
Moving on, RM is now talking about the officer working party he earlier referred to.

We hear about an Inspector Calvert and a memo he wrote is referenced briefly.

Eastwoods engineers are referenced as they also had some input into the Officer Working Party.

By 1989 they had about 100 people working for it and Dr Eastwood was an “enormously respected structural engineer who was undoubtedly viewed as an expert on stadium safety”.

He has since passed away.

RM continues - Ronald Grimshaw was a Fire Service representative on the Officer Working Party.

He explains Mr Grimshaw saw Dr Eastwood and one of those who worked with him, a Mr Strange, who sometimes attended meetings of the Working Party, as representatives of the Club. Many of the meetings were arranged because of proposals of Eastwoods.

RM says the jury will also hear from Jonathan Strange, who worked for Dr Eastwood.

RM: “The Safety Certificate was never updated or amended from the date it was granted in 1979 until the day of the disaster. However, the licensing authority was notified of various changes and equally there was an awareness on the part of that OWP of the various changes that took place.”

He adds by 1989 there was “a recognition by all concerned that the safety certificate was very out of date”.

And RM adds: “Few of those involved with the Safety Certificate appear to have performed their function diligently in this regard, not least Dr Eastwood and his company.”


12:51
Expert believes 1989 West Stand terrace capacity was overstated by more than 1,500 people
RM introduces John Cutlack, a structural engineer expert, expected to give evidence in the trial.

He says: “In short, John Cutlack will explain why it is that the figures quoted on the safety certificate for the safe capacity of the West Terrace were, in his opinion, overstated from the outset.”

This was down to changes made, including:

a. the introduction of radial fences;

b. the ‘sterile area’ pen 5 and the yellow hatched area and removal of barrier 144.

Mr Cutlack’s opinion is that in 1989 the safe capacity of he West Stand terrace was closer to 5,426. The safety certificate figure for that area was 7,200.


12:52
Incident of crushing at 1981 FA Cup semi final
RM is now giving the jury a run through of some earlier matches at Hillsborough.

Hillsborough was selected as the venue for the 1981 FA Cup Semi-Final. Tottenham Hotspur played Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Tottenham supporters were allocated the Leppings Lane end of the ground.

The segregation arrangements inside the stadium at the 1981 match involved Spurs fans being allocated the West terrace and stand and half of the North and South stands with a ‘sandwich’ filling of neutral supporters in the middle.

RM: “There was an incident of crushing in 1981. The police response to the crushing was to relieve the pressure by opening the pitch perimeter gates to let people out.”

The jury is now shown footage from the match which shows members of the crowd on the pitch and climbing over the pitch perimeter fencing.


13:00
After 1981 crush: “I do not think it is this type of action which requires analysis, the searching examination should be in regard to why such emergency action was ever necessary.”
RM takes us to a letter written by South Yorkshire Police to Mr McGee the chairman of Sheffield Wednesday.

It stated that the writer: “wholeheartedly agree with you that by learning from our experiences both the club and the police should be able to improve their performance, particularly if that performance is looked at dispassionately and constructively.

“The letters of complaint you received and those both complimentary and otherwise which I have received have established beyond doubt that the police action, in letting spectators onto the track, was not only necessary but was vital to avoid further serious injuries and possibly save life. In this respect, my only criticism of my senior officers is for not opening the gates earlier and thus avoiding the emergency measure of allowing and helping spectators to climb over the fence.

“This type of decision, however, if often necessary in operational circumstances and although it may look “untidy,” the needs of the occasion demand instant action irrespective of how it may appear to the onlooker. I do not think it is this type of action which requires analysis, the searching examination should be in regard to why such emergency action was ever necessary.”


13:01
Radial fences
RM: You will hear some evidence that in 1981 on that occasion police had blocked off access to the Leppings Lane terrace and were not allowing more spectators to enter it. This incident appears to be why the radial fences were introduced.

On 2 September 1981 , Dr Eastwood wrote to the County Council to say that his firm would look at installing two radial fences on the Leppings Lane terrace. These would divide the terrace into three equal areas.

Gates were installed at top of the fences to allow movement between pens.

Nothing was done to created designated turnstiles for each pen.


13:03
Police methods for Leppings Lane terrace fan distribution
RM explains In 1981 two methods were undertaken by police to distribute spectators on that terrace.

The ‘find your own level method’ saw spectators given unrestricted access to all parts of the terrace with the gates locked open. The theory was spectators could move between pens and distribute themselves as they saw fit.

The second method was more sequential and saw police direct spectators to a particular pen then close access off access to that pen and direct the next group of fans to another pen.

The case has now been adjourned for lunch. It will resume at 2pm

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell

 

[Legally Bland]

Prosecution opening

14:12
Back underway
Good afternoon everyone. The judge, jury and legal parties are back in court and we are due to resume.


14:18
Changes to the terrace and the Spion Kop at Hillsborough
We are now being told about changes to the Leppings Lane terrace in 1985 and 1986.

We are hearing John Cutlack will later tell the jury about the removal of parts of some crush barriers. More detail on the changes will be given to the jury later in the case.

In 1986 the club carried out a “major reconstruction” to the Spion Kop - increasing its capacity by around 4,000. That change was approved by the council but no amendment was made to the safety certificate.


14:23
Safety Officer
We’re back to the 1986 Green Guide now.

Two paragraphs are read out. This is the second of them:

“There should be an appointed safety officer who should be of sufficient status and authority effectively to take responsibility for safety at the ground and to be able to authorise and supervise safety measures.

“He or an appointed deputy should be in attendance at a central control point when an event takes place. All staff should know the location of this control point and who is in charge of safely on the day in question.”

A summary list of management responsibilities included: “To appoint a safety officer.”


14:28
Green Guide - key responsibilities read out to jury
RM is reading out certain sections of the Green Guide to the jury.

They highlight some of the responsibilities it highlighted.

• “Where admission to a ground or parts of it is controlled by turnstiles, these, by their number and location, control not only the rate of admission but, to a large extent, the dispersal of spectators within a ground to their particular sections.

“Turnstiles should be of such numbers as to admit spectators at a rate whereby no unduly large crowds are kept waiting for admission and yet at no faster rate than the arrangements for distributing spectators within the ground permit.”

Another para:

• “Dangerous overcrowding can be caused if spectators are able to force their way into a ground already full to capacity by scaling or breaking through boundary walls or fences or the gates in them.”

And again (Para 46): “Contingency plans should be made to deal with situations where the available entrances at a ground have proved insufficient to stop unduly large crowds from gathering outside.

“This may, for example, include opening additional entrances, but local knowledge

of the ground, crowd patterns and advice from the police should be taken into account in drawing up contingency plans.

“Larger grounds should have intercommunication systems and metering systems at turnstiles, and installation of a centralised computer monitoring system may be of assistance to management in quickly identifying particular areas of difficulty.”

RM “In due course [you will] have to decide what care it was reasonable for Mr Mackrell to have shown as part of his job as safety officer, about the making of contingency plans and what satisfying paragraph 46 required of the club by way of a contingency plan.”


14:28
Safe turnstile entry rate
The Green Guide also contained figure for turnstile entry rate. It suggested 750 persons per hour as the max notional rate for admitting people through a turnstile.

The Green Guide also recommended a maximum crowd density of 54 people per 10 square metres. John Cutlack will assist the jury in that regard.


14:36
Prosecution case set out in light of those recent points
RM: “It is the prosecution’s case that anyone, showing a reasonable degree of care, who turned their mind to it, should have and would have recognised that there was an obvious risk of overcrowding from the uncontrolled entry of spectators into the concourse at the mouth of that tunnel if pens 3 and 4 were full.

“This risk was obviously consequent upon, what was an equally obvious risk, that pens 3 and 4 would become full by a combination of the attraction that they offered by way of behind the goalmouth view and the geography I have tried to help you be familiar with over tHE last day and a half.”

He adds that such overcrowding, if nothing were done to stop it or very swiftly done to alleviate it, would bring with it at the very least a serious risk of death is something that is established beyond argument “by not only the scale of death, but, as we’ll see, the scale of injury and of those who escaped death by the narrow margin of fate in how and when they escaped the terrible effect of the crush.”


14:36
SWFC PLC now only ‘an entry on a register’
Graham Mackrell became club secretary of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, the company known as Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Plc on 15 December 1986.

The company that was Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Plc today exists only as an entry on a register at Companies House.

Hillsborough: Updates from trial of David Duckenfield and Graham Mackrell