This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/25/hillsborough-disaster-coroner-inquest-david-duckenfield

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Hillsborough inquests jury told to consider unlawful killing verdict Hillsborough inquests jury told to consider unlawful killing verdict
(about 2 hours later)
The jury at the inquests into how 96 people died in the lethal crush at Hillsborough in 1989 will be asked to consider whether the South Yorkshire police chief superintendent, David Duckenfield, who was in charge of the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, caused the deaths by gross negligence manslaughter. The jury at the inquests into how 96 people died in the lethal crush at Hillsborough in 1989 will be asked to consider whether the South Yorkshire police chief superintendent David Duckenfield, who was in charge of the FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest, caused the deaths by gross negligence manslaughter.
The coroner, Sir John Goldring, told the jury of seven women and three men at the start of his summing up of 267 days of evidence that they would be asked to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, based on their assessment of Duckenfield’s preparation for the match and conduct of it on the day.The coroner, Sir John Goldring, told the jury of seven women and three men at the start of his summing up of 267 days of evidence that they would be asked to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, based on their assessment of Duckenfield’s preparation for the match and conduct of it on the day.
In order to answer yes to the question about whether those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed, Goldring said: “You would have to be sure that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of these 96 people. When answering this question, we are looking at Mr Duckenfield’s conduct and his responsibility.” In order to answer yes to the question about whether those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed, Goldring said, “you would have to be sure that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of these 96 people. When answering this question, we are looking at Mr Duckenfield’s conduct and his responsibility.”
Goldring explained that the jury would consider the crucial order by Duckenfield at 2.52pm toopen an exit gate and allow a large number of supporters into the Leppings Lane end, but not take steps to close off a tunnel leading to the central “pens” where the lethal crush then happened. Goldring explained that the jury would consider the crucial order by Duckenfield at 2.52pm toopen an exit gate and allow a large number of supporters into the Leppings Lane end, but not to take steps to close off a tunnel leading to the central pens where the lethal crush then happened.
He told the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the statements Duckenfield made to Football Association officials as the disaster was unfolding, which the police chief admitted was “a lie by omission”. If they found that in fact Duckenfield deliberately lied, because he knew that he was responsible for the crush by his order to open the gates, and was trying to blame the fans, then, Goldring said, that “become relevant to his responsibility”. He told the jury that they would be entitled to take into account the statement Duckenfield made to Football Association officials as the disaster was unfolding, which the police chief admitted was “a lie by omission”. If they found that in fact Duckenfield deliberately lied, because he knew that he was responsible for the crush by his order to open the gates, and was trying to blame the fans, then, Goldring said, that “become relevant to his responsibility”.
Explaining to the jury the legal definition of gross negligence manslaughter, Goldring said they would have to be satisfied that Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the people attending the FA Cup semi-final, which 54,000 people attended. 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, then that if there were such breaches, they caused the 96 deaths. Explaining to the jury the legal definition of gross negligence manslaughter, Goldring said they would have to be satisfied that Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the people attending the FA Cup semi-final, which 54,000 people attended. 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.
After that, Goldring said, the jury must determine the seriousness of any breaches of Duckenfield’s duty of care to the people at the match: “You have to consider whether you are sure that Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care to the supporters was so bad, having regard to the risk of death involved, as in your view to amount to a criminal act or omission.”After that, Goldring said, the jury must determine the seriousness of any breaches of Duckenfield’s duty of care to the people at the match: “You have to consider whether you are sure that Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care to the supporters was so bad, having regard to the risk of death involved, as in your view to amount to a criminal act or omission.”
Duckenfield’s level of experience, and whether he prepared adequately for commanding the match, will be taken into account, as well as his actions or omissions on the day, 15 April 1989.Duckenfield’s level of experience, and whether he prepared adequately for commanding the match, will be taken into account, as well as his actions or omissions on the day, 15 April 1989.
“You consider his conduct in its proper context,” Goldring said, “and you ask yourselves whether, having regard to the foreseeable risk of death to those in the central pens, it was so bad as in your view to be criminal. “You consider his conduct in its proper context,” Goldring said, “and you ask yourselves whether, having regard to the foreseeable risk of death to those in the central pens, it was so bad as in your view to be criminal.”
Four separate questions will also be asked about the South Yorkshire police’s handling of the match, including whether a different match commander should have been selected than Duckenfield, the chief superintendent, given his level of experience in policing at Hillsborough. Consideration of his and the general police management will include their planning and preparation, and their stewardship of the crowd outside the Leppings Lane turnstiles, where a dangerous situation developed, leading to Duckenfield’s decision to open the exit gate. Four separate questions will be asked about South Yorkshire police’s handling of the match, including whether a different match commander should have been selected instead of Duckenfield, given his level of experience in policing at Hillsborough. Consideration of his and the general police management will include their planning and preparation, and their stewardship of the crowd outside the Leppings Lane turnstiles, where a dangerous situation developed, leading to Duckenfield’s decision to open the exit gate.
The jury will also consider whether the South Yorkshire police and South Yorkshire ambulance service failed to adequately recognise the lethal crush developing in those pens, and to organise a medical response quickly and effectively enough.The jury will also consider whether the South Yorkshire police and South Yorkshire ambulance service failed to adequately recognise the lethal crush developing in those pens, and to organise a medical response quickly and effectively enough.
The behaviour of Liverpool supporters at the approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles will also be considered, with the jury asked whether it contributed to the dangerous situation in the approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles. The question, No 7, will ask whether supporters there “behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control”.The behaviour of Liverpool supporters at the approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles will also be considered, with the jury asked whether it contributed to the dangerous situation in the approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles. The question, No 7, will ask whether supporters there “behaved in a way which was unusually forceful or resistant to police control”.
Considerations for answering that question include whether there were “significant numbers” of supporters without tickets at the approach to the turnstiles, and whether there was anything in their behaviour or “arrival pattern” that “could not reasonably be foreseen by experienced police officers”.Considerations for answering that question include whether there were “significant numbers” of supporters without tickets at the approach to the turnstiles, and whether there was anything in their behaviour or “arrival pattern” that “could not reasonably be foreseen by experienced police officers”.
With 267 days of evidence having been heard since they began on 1 April 2014, the Hillsborough inquests have become the longest case ever heard by a jury in British legal history. About 250 people, whose relatives died in the disaster were in the courtroom, listening quietly to Goldring begin his summing up and read out the 14 questions to be answered. With 267 days of evidence having been heard since they began on 1 April 2014, the Hillsborough inquests have become the longest case ever heard by a jury in British legal history. About 250 people whose relatives died in the disaster were in the courtroom, listening quietly as Goldring began his summing up and read out the 14 questions to be answered.
The questions for consideration by the jury also include whether there were defects in the safety of the stadium, or failures by Sheffield Wednesday football club, whose ground Hillsborough is, the club’s engineers Eastwoods, and the licensing of the stadium, which may have contributed to the dangerous situation that developed outside and in the “pens”. The questions for consideration by the jury also include whether there were defects in the safety of the stadium, or failures by Sheffield Wednesday football club, whose ground Hillsborough is, the club’s engineers Eastwoods, or in the licensing of the stadium, which may have contributed to the dangerous situation that developed outside and in the pens.
Goldring has said he will take three weeks to complete his summing up of all the evidence and law relating to the deaths. He told the jury, which is expected to start considering its verdicts on 22 February, they will have to assess the evidence dispassionately, and put to one side the “great sympathy” they will have felt when hearing the evidence, for those who lost loved ones in the disaster. Goldring has said he will take three weeks to complete his summing up of all the evidence and law relating to the deaths. The jury is expected to start considering its verdicts on 22 February. Goldring said they would have to assess the evidence dispassionately, and put to one side the “great sympathy” they would have felt when hearing the evidence for those who lost loved ones in the disaster.
Introducing the summing up, Goldring explained that an inquest is a legal proceeding which answers four questions: who, when, where and how a person died. Introducing the summing up, Goldring explained that an inquest was a legal proceeding that sought to answer four questions: who, when, where and how a person died.
“In this case, as in many inquests, the question of how the person came by his or her death is the most important, difficult and controversial,” he said.“In this case, as in many inquests, the question of how the person came by his or her death is the most important, difficult and controversial,” he said.
“‘How’ includes the circumstances surrounding the death; that includes the events which led to the death, the facts which may have contributed to the death. In this case, that is the more controversial area, is it not?”“‘How’ includes the circumstances surrounding the death; that includes the events which led to the death, the facts which may have contributed to the death. In this case, that is the more controversial area, is it not?”