UK prosecutors charge six people over 1989 Hillsborough disaster that killed 96

[Jonathan Fairfield]

UK prosecutors charge six people over 1989 Hillsborough disaster that killed 96

 

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's state prosecution service on Wednesday announced criminal charges against six people over the 1989 Hillsborough soccer stadium crush in which 96 fans died, the country's worst sporting disaster.

 

The victims, all Liverpool supporters, died in an overcrowded, fenced-in enclosure at the Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield, northern England, during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest.

 

Police at first blamed the tragedy on drunken fans, an explanation that was always rejected by the families of the victims and the wider Liverpool community. Relatives campaigned for justice for the 96 for decades.

 

"I have decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge six individuals with criminal offences," said Sue Hemming, head of the special crime and counter-terrorism division at the Crown Prosecution Service, in a statement.

 

Relatives of the victims, who were told of the decision to bring charges in private shortly before it was made public, were seen embracing outside the building where they were briefed in Warrington, northern England. One man pumped his fist.

David Duckenfield, a former police chief superintendent who was in charge of police operations at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster, was charged with the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 men, women and children, Hemming said.

 

"We will allege that David Duckenfield’s failures to discharge his personal responsibility were extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives," she said.

 

He was not charged over the death of the 96th casualty, who died four years after the disaster, because of legal time limits that were in force at the time.

 

Norman Bettison, a former police chief constable, was charged with four offences of misconduct in public office relating to telling alleged lies about his involvement in the aftermath of the disaster and the culpability of fans.

 

"Given his role as a senior police officer, we will ask the jury to find that this was misconduct of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder," said Hemming.

 

The other people were two other ex-police officers, a lawyer who had acted for police, and a safety officer at the Hillsborough stadium. Charges included perverting the course of justice, contravening safety regulations and misconduct in public office.

 

The defendants, other than Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington Magistrates' Court on August 9 for a first hearing in their prosecution.

 

(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon in London and Andy Yates in Warrington, England; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-06-28

[KhaoNiaw]

Let justice take its course .... finally.

[ddavidovsky]

I'm not convinced of the reasonableness of prosecuting police officers for decisions taken in their job. Many people have to make decisions that can have disastrous effects - especially politicians - it's too easy to judge after the event.

You can fire them, and even publicly humiliate them, but it's a grotesque misuse of the legal system to make them legally accountable for errors of judgement.

[KhaoNiaw]

1 minute ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm not convinced of the reasonableness of prosecuting police officers for decisions taken in their job. Many people have to make decisions that can have disastrous effects - especially politicians - it's too easy to judge after the event.

You can fire them, and even publicly humiliate them, but it's a grotesque misuse of the legal system to make them legally accountable for errors of judgement.

That's for the legal system to decide.

[ddavidovsky]

4 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

That's for the legal system to decide.

I don't believe the legal system has any idea what its powers are in these cases,  at least until precedents are established - and this is a one-off tragedy. It's all up for debate, and my opinion is: drop it.

Edited June 28, 2017 by ddavidovsky

[KhaoNiaw]

8 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

I don't believe the legal system has any idea what it's powers are in these cases,  at least until precedents are established - and this is a one-off tragedy. It's all up for debate, and my opinion is: drop it.

It is no longer up for debate  - the inquest found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". Why is it unreasonable to establish if or who is responsible for people being unlawfully killed? No-one has been found guilty yet.

 

I would also suggest it is not going to be a one-off. This could have ramifications for the coming Grenfell inquest for example, and save those victims decades of pain trying to get justice. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by KhaoNiaw

[ddavidovsky]

1 hour ago, KhaoNiaw said:

It is no longer up for debate  - the inquest found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". Why is it unreasonable to establish if or who is responsible for people being unlawfully killed? No-one has been found guilty yet.

 

I would also suggest it is not going to be a one-off. This could have ramifications for the coming Grenfell inquest for example, and save those victims decades of pain trying to get justice. 

Grenfell didn't involve 'heat of the moment' judgements by the police. The judgements being weighed in the Hillsborough case were unique to that particular event.

 

The Hillsborough case needlessly jeopardises an important principle: whether a policeman is legally culpable for judgements made in his job, which are often in unique,  unpredictable, spur of the moment situations. The police need to be protected from that kind of witch-hunt - as are politicians, who have far less excuse for their errors of judgement, but which can equally cause loss of life.

 

Why should judgement by subject to the law at all? Who has never made a wrong judgement? Even the judge in any courtroom will admit to having made errors of judgement in his time that have caused suffering. Is he to be prosecuted for making legal misjudgements? It becomes farcical once you start going down that road.

 

There's also the distinct danger here of being swayed by  'social justice' crusader mentality - nobody dare dismiss these cases out of hand nowadays for fear of incurring the wrath of the tabloids, and so very possible we shall see all reason fly out of the courtroom window.

[Jonmarleesco]

Twenty-eight years. Most of the ignoramuses responsible for Grenfell will have passed over before they face justice. 

[rockingrobin]

19 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Grenfell didn't involve 'heat of the moment' judgements by the police. The judgements being weighed in the Hillsborough case were unique to that particular event.

 

The Hillsborough case needlessly jeopardises an important principle: whether a policeman is legally culpable for judgements made in his job, which are often in unique,  unpredictable, spur of the moment situations. The police need to be protected from that kind of witch-hunt - as are politicians, who have far less excuse for their errors of judgement, but which can equally cause loss of life.

 

Why should judgement by subject to the law at all? Who has never made a wrong judgement? Even the judge in any courtroom will admit to having made errors of judgement in his time that have caused suffering. Is he to be prosecuted for making legal misjudgements? It becomes farcical once you start going down that road.

 

There's also the distinct danger here of being swayed by  'social justice' crusader mentality - nobody dare dismiss these cases out of hand nowadays for fear of incurring the wrath of the tabloids, and so very possible we shall see all reason fly out of the courtroom window.

Everybody has a duty of care

[KhaoNiaw]

24 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Grenfell didn't involve 'heat of the moment' judgements by the police. The judgements being weighed in the Hillsborough case were unique to that particular event.

 

The Hillsborough case needlessly jeopardises an important principle: whether a policeman is legally culpable for judgements made in his job, which are often in unique,  unpredictable, spur of the moment situations. The police need to be protected from that kind of witch-hunt - as are politicians, who have far less excuse for their errors of judgement, but which can equally cause loss of life.

 

Why should judgement by subject to the law at all? Who has never made a wrong judgement? Even the judge in any courtroom will admit to having made errors of judgement in his time that have caused suffering. Is he to be prosecuted for making legal misjudgements? It becomes farcical once you start going down that road.

 

There's also the distinct danger here of being swayed by  'social justice' crusader mentality - nobody dare dismiss these cases out of hand nowadays for fear of incurring the wrath of the tabloids, and so very possible we shall see all reason fly out of the courtroom window.

 

It doesn't jeopardise anything. The inquest considered the evidence very carefully  and  found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". It's nothing about social justice crusades. A legal inquest found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". It has already been determined that there was a witch-hunt against the fans not the police. Do you understand what has happened since 1989? 

 

Unlawfully killed. That has already been determined and was no longer in question. In light of that verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service has now decided that they have evidence to charge those involved. It is not a verdict. They have made a decision to charge people based on the evidence and a court will determine their innocence or guilt. 

 

Note also that charges not only relate to the deaths but the aftermath. There are charges of perjury because it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to charge those involved with perverting the course of justice. It has already been established that there is no witch-hunt against the police. The CPS feel they have grounds to bring charges. It is now going to be for a court to decide whether those individuals lied and perverted the course of justice in an effort to cover up the truth. Innocent until proven guilty of course.

 

Your argument seems to go back to 1989 and ignore everything that has been recognized and understood in the meantime, thanks only to the efforts of the families, survivors and their supporters. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by KhaoNiaw

[colinneil]

2 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm not convinced of the reasonableness of prosecuting police officers for decisions taken in their job. Many people have to make decisions that can have disastrous effects - especially politicians - it's too easy to judge after the event.

You can fire them, and even publicly humiliate them, but it's a grotesque misuse of the legal system to make them legally accountable for errors of judgement.

Are you related to Duckenfield?

He was 100% to blame, he was not fit to be the commander of the police on that fateful day.

He panicked/ froze.Then afterwards blamed fans for his actions/inactions.

[KhaoNiaw]

I would also add that I think the CPS were considering charges against 20 -30 individuals and organizations. It is not bringing charges against 'The Police' or 'A Policeman' for 'heat of the moment judgements'. The CPS has weighed up the evidence and decided that there is enough evidence to bring charges against these 6 individuals. I believe they have also explained why they have not brought charges against the others. It is not a knee-jerk reaction.

[ddavidovsky]

2 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

 

It doesn't jeopardise anything. The inquest considered the evidence very carefully  and  found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". It's nothing about social justice crusades. A legal inquest found that those who died were "unlawfully killed". It has already been determined that there was a witch-hunt against the fans not the police. Do you understand what has happened since 1989? 

 

Unlawfully killed. That has already been determined and was no longer in question. In light of that verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service has now decided that they have evidence to charge those involved. It is not a verdict. They have made a decision to charge people based on the evidence and a court will determine their innocence or guilt. 

 

Note also that charges not only relate to the deaths but the aftermath. There are charges of perjury because it is felt that there is sufficient evidence to charge those involved with perverting the course of justice. It has already been established that there is no witch-hunt against the police. The CPS feel they have grounds to bring charges. It is now going to be for a court to decide whether those individuals lied and perverted the course of justice. Innocent until proven guilty of course.

 

Your argument seems to go back to 1989 and ignore everything that has been recognized and understood in the meantime. 

 

So you think public servants should be prosecuted for their professional misjudgements? This is exactly the issue, so it needs a clear answer.  And remember that if you prosecute one misjudgement, then you have to start prosecuting them all.

 

Perjury? Being contingent on an inadmissible threat of prosecution, then I would say those circumstances logically render the accusation invalid too.

 

'Unlawfully killed' was little more than an opinion - publicly swayed - and quite misguided, to my mind.

 

The inquest was all very well for lessons to be learned, but not as the basis for a legal scape-goating to salve the country's conscience because something went wrong. It's really all part of the cry-baby syndrome that has swept over society - people can't accept misfortune any more and their first impulse is to find someone to blame.

[ddavidovsky]

16 minutes ago, colinneil said:

Are you related to Duckenfield?

He was 100% to blame, he was not fit to be the commander of the police on that fateful day.

He panicked/ froze.Then afterwards blamed fans for his actions/inactions.

He may well be blameworthy - if so he should lose his job - he's already been publicly castigated. The thing is, he should not be prosecuted, on principle. If you do that then you have to prosecute Tony Blair for getting us into the Iraq war, and everyone else who has made a professional misjudgement. Do you really want to go down that path?

[KhaoNiaw]

5 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

'Unlawfully killed' was little more than an opinion - publicly swayed - and quite misguided, to my mind.

Was the judgement of a legal inquest.

 

Duckenfield's failures to discharge his personal responsibility were "extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives".

Yes, he should face a court to answer charges.

As should any public servant whose incompetence or irresponsibility results in the death of innocent people. 

 

And when there is evidence of the deliberate alteration of witness statements or the statements of police officers without their knowledge, you don't think that's worthy of charges?

[rockingrobin]

19 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

So you think public servants should be prosecuted for their professional misjudgements? This is exactly the issue, so it needs a clear answer.  And remember that if you prosecute one misjudgement, then you have to start prosecuting them all.

 

Perjury? Being contingent on an inadmissible threat of prosecution, then I would say those circumstances logically render the accusation invalid too.

 

'Unlawfully killed' was little more than an opinion - publicly swayed - and quite misguided, to my mind.

 

The inquest was all very well for lessons to be learned, but not as the basis for a legal scape-goating to salve the country's conscience because something went wrong. It's really all part of the cry-baby syndrome that has swept over society - people can't accept misfortune any more and their first impulse is to find someone to blame.

It wasn't misfortune , the deaths occured as a result of a failure to act in some instances and also  the result of actions carried out in others.

Everybody will make mistakes , that is part of being human, however it is the nature of the consequences and the level of responsibility of  the person making such decisions

[ddavidovsky]

10 minutes ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Was the judgement of a legal inquest.

 

Duckenfield's failures to discharge his personal responsibility were "extraordinarily bad and contributed substantially to the deaths of each of those 96 people who so tragically and unnecessarily lost their lives".

Yes, he should face a court to answer charges.

As should any public servant whose incompetence or irresponsibility results in the death of innocent people. 

 

And when there is evidence of the deliberate alteration of witness statements or the statements of police officers without their knowledge, you don't think that's worthy of charges?

I'm not sure why you're not getting this - though people who have dug themselves into a position never revise their opinion (I think it's something to with losing face), so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

Incompetence is not something that should be legally prosecuted. What on earth is achieved by doing that? You think it will somehow change human nature and create a perfect world?

 

By precisely the same reasoning, you would therefore insist on prosecuting an army commander who made a decision that caused soldiers to be killed - a decision that, after the event, was demonstrably faulty? Where does it end?

[William C F Pierce]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

Grenfell didn't involve 'heat of the moment' judgements by the police. The judgements being weighed in the Hillsborough case were unique to that particular event.

 

The Hillsborough case needlessly jeopardises an important principle: whether a policeman is legally culpable for judgements made in his job, which are often in unique,  unpredictable, spur of the moment situations. The police need to be protected from that kind of witch-hunt - as are politicians, who have far less excuse for their errors of judgement, but which can equally cause loss of life.

 

Why should judgement by subject to the law at all? Who has never made a wrong judgement? Even the judge in any courtroom will admit to having made errors of judgement in his time that have caused suffering. Is he to be prosecuted for making legal misjudgements? It becomes farcical once you start going down that road.

 

There's also the distinct danger here of being swayed by  'social justice' crusader mentality - nobody dare dismiss these cases out of hand nowadays for fear of incurring the wrath of the tabloids, and so very possible we shall see all reason fly out of the courtroom window.

Will justice be seen to be done. I remember watching the event long before the tragidy on TV where the TV commentator looking down Lepers Lane said "The Fans are still coming. There must be another 3 or 4 thousand of them. I don't know where they are all going to go the ground is nearly full." Two questions that have not been asked is 1. Did the FA issue more tckets than the ground could hold. Or 2. was there a blackmarket in forged tickets.

 

A point is no policeman has X-Ray to be able to see what was going on inside the ground. There was no mobile phone then or radio communications in use at soccer grounds. 4000 people continuously pushing towards the stadium could easily have caused a disaster outside the ground if the gates had remained lock". Someone was responsible for causing a situation that was not the fault of the police. More tickets than available places whose fault was it. 6 people are now about  to face a kangeroo court in a demand for justice.

[Suradit69]

Gee it took 28 years to officially accuse the police of incompetence. I wonder what caused ( motivated ?) the delay. 

 

3 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

You can fire them, and even publicly humiliate them, but it's a grotesque misuse of the legal system to make them legally accountable for errors of judgement.

Wonderful idea to encourage irresponsible behavior if they remain immune to prosecution and from being held accountable. "Errors of judgement" is such a fluid term that it could easily be used to cover a host of "sins,"  especially when the police themselves are the likely custodians of the facts/evidence and can freely delete, augment, twist, and refashion the evidence to appear to be nothing more than "errors of judgment."

 

Why not apply the same "logic" to anyone employed in a position of responsibility or anyone who enjoys celebrity whose irresponsible behavior causes death, property damage or ruins lives?  I'm sure Dr. Harold Shipman who killed 200 of his patients could be said to have made "errors of judgement" in his treatment protocol.

 

I certainly agree that at the minimum the police should have been fired ... but I assume most continued to claim full salary for 28 years and probably some/many are enjoying retirement benefits at this point thanks to the cover-up and suppression of the facts.

[Rc2702]

1 hour ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm not sure why you're not getting this - though people who have dug themselves into a position never revise their opinion (I think it's something to with losing face), so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

Incompetence is not something that should be legally prosecuted. What on earth is achieved by doing that? You think it will somehow change human nature and create a perfect world?

 

By precisely the same reasoning, you would therefore insist on prosecuting an army commander who made a decision that caused soldiers to be killed - a decision that, after the event, was demonstrably faulty? Where does it end?

Shocking idea. Get trained get educated get shown the correct procedures get adequate experience but make a m mistake and it's ok. So a Doctor can accidentally kill a kid and it's ok or a train driver can make an error and kill innocents and that's OK no prosecution. Welcome to being British mate its called Justice 

[KhaoNiaw]

6 hours ago, William C F Pierce said:

Will justice be seen to be done. I remember watching the event long before the tragidy on TV where the TV commentator looking down Lepers Lane said "The Fans are still coming. There must be another 3 or 4 thousand of them. I don't know where they are all going to go the ground is nearly full." Two questions that have not been asked is 1. Did the FA issue more tckets than the ground could hold. Or 2. was there a blackmarket in forged tickets.

 

A point is no policeman has X-Ray to be able to see what was going on inside the ground. There was no mobile phone then or radio communications in use at soccer grounds. 4000 people continuously pushing towards the stadium could easily have caused a disaster outside the ground if the gates had remained lock". Someone was responsible for causing a situation that was not the fault of the police. More tickets than available places whose fault was it. 6 people are now about  to face a kangeroo court in a demand for justice.

Most of the points you're making are incorrect and have already been dealt with by inquiries and the last inquest. You should really go back and educate yourself on what happened and has come out since. And in 1989 you don't believe they had radio communications?  Those communications (and lack of) played a big part at the inquest. 

 

[whatawonderfulday]

28 years to finally admit that this was indeed a cover up by the police at this tragic event although of course they are not guilty until convicted.  No doubt the trial will last for years.

[Basil B]

 

14 hours ago, colinneil said:

Are you related to Duckenfield?

He was 100% to blame, he was not fit to be the commander of the police on that fateful day.

He panicked/ froze.Then afterwards blamed fans for his actions/inactions.

He was wrong, a trial may well be a warning to others, but was it negligence or incompetence? and are not those who appointed him just as equally to blame?

But incarcerating a 72 year old for something that happened 28 years ago, seems pointless, he is not in a position to do it again,  I am sure he is not heartless and has regretted his actions every day of his life after this event, he still has to live with himself.

 

What is more criminal is the collusion to blame the fans and the altering of evidence...  

 

Things have changed nowadays we see commanders appointed to oversee such events who went to university and have degrees and versed in FMEA (Failure modes and effects analysis), etc. and more likely to take advise from subordinates. 

Edited June 29, 2017 by Basil B

[perthperson]

"He was wrong, a trial may well be a warning to others, but was it negligence or incompetence?"  

 

I think it will be virtually impossible to prove  negligence given the passage of time and the fact that this was a unique crowd control issue. 

 

Of greater concern are the accusations of collusion coupled with the alteration of evidence- ------- Agree ...

[Basil B]

5 hours ago, KhaoNiaw said:

Most of the points you're making are incorrect and have already been dealt with by inquiries and the last inquest. You should really go back and educate yourself on what happened and has come out since. And in 1989 you don't believe they had radio communications?  Those communications (and lack of) played a big part at the inquest. 

 

The police did have radio communications then...

 

The iconic Pye PF1 had been obsolete for over a decade by then.

 

 

By then they had multi channel devices and probably an event base station set up to ensure coverage of the ground inside and out, problem was hundred or so police offices trying to talk, break in on the same channel.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Basil B said:

 

He was wrong, a trial may well be a warning to others, but was it negligence or incompetence? and are not those who appointed him just as equally to blame?

But incarcerating a 72 year old for something that happened 28 years ago, seems pointless, he is not in a position to do it again,  I am sure he is not heartless and has regretted his actions every day of his life after this event, he still has to live with himself.

 

What is more criminal is the collusion to blame the fans and the altering of evidence...  

 

Things have changed nowadays we see commanders appointed to oversee such events who went to university and have degrees and versed in FMEA (Failure modes and effects analysis), etc. and more likely to take advise from subordinates. 

I agree insofar as those involved were likely 'just'.... careless.

 

Prison sentences need to be handed out to discourage others in positions of authority from believing they are above the law.

 

Those in lesser positions found guilty of gross misconduct have their pensions withdrawn?  The same should apply to these high ranking people - backdated so that they have to repay the pensions paid to them.

Edited June 29, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, perthperson said:

"He was wrong, a trial may well be a warning to others, but was it negligence or incompetence?"  

 

I think it will be virtually impossible to prove  negligence given the passage of time and the fact that this was a unique crowd control issue. 

 

Of greater concern are the accusations of collusion coupled with the alteration of evidence- ------- Agree ...

It wasnt a unique crowd control situation. The same stadium suffered similiar crowd problems in previuos years.

[ddavidovsky]

14 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

Shocking idea. Get trained get educated get shown the correct procedures get adequate experience but make a m mistake and it's ok. So a Doctor can accidentally kill a kid and it's ok or a train driver can make an error and kill innocents and that's OK no prosecution. Welcome to being British mate its called Justice 

It's called misfortune. Get over it.

[rockingrobin]

14 hours ago, Rc2702 said:

Shocking idea. Get trained get educated get shown the correct procedures get adequate experience but make a m mistake and it's ok. So a Doctor can accidentally kill a kid and it's ok or a train driver can make an error and kill innocents and that's OK no prosecution. Welcome to being British mate its called Justice 

 

19 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

It's called misfortune. Get over it.

1932 Donoghue v Stevenson

 

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question " Who is my neighbour ?" receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then in law is my neighbour ? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

 

[Briggsy]

19 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm not convinced of the reasonableness of prosecuting police officers for decisions taken in their job. Many people have to make decisions that can have disastrous effects - especially politicians - it's too easy to judge after the event.

You can fire them, and even publicly humiliate them, but it's a grotesque misuse of the legal system to make them legally accountable for errors of judgement.

I put it to you that you are not familiar with the facts of this case and you are not familiar with the findings of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. Please go and take a couple of days to read all relevant material and you will see that the actions of the police that have been charged not only were unlawful but also pass the UK CPS prosecution test of a reasonable chance of conviction.

 

You are posting based on your political standpoint rather than the facts of the case.