Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
DCWat
Posts: 9330
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:04 am
Been Liked: 4142 times
Has Liked: 3605 times

Re: Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Post by DCWat » Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:30 pm

fanzone wrote:Absolutely ridiculous, there were more than one man to blame that day, how guilty are the thousands upon thousands that turned up with no tickets.
“Lord Justice Taylor, in his 1990 report into the disaster, concluded fans were reasonable to arrive between 14.30 and 14.40 as match tickets only requested people be in their places "15 minutes before the game". He was also satisfied that the large concentration of fans who gathered Leppings Lane at 14.40 to 14.50 "did not arrive as a result of any concerted plan" .

He concluded that police had "failed" to prepare for controlling the arrival of a large number of fans in a short period. Both the club and police "should have realised the turnstile area could not easily cope with the large numbers demanded of it" unless they arrived steadily over a lengthy period.

He accepted there were "small groups without tickets" looking to "exploit any chance of getting into the ground". But the main problem was simply one of "large numbers packed into the small area outside the turnstiles". He stated categorically that "fans' behaviour played no part in the disaster".

The Hillsborough Independent Panel (HIP) report concluded crowd congestion outside the stadium was "not caused by fans arriving late" for the kick-off . The turnstiles, it said, were "inadequate to process the crowd safely" and the rate of entry insufficient to prevent a dangerous build-up outside the ground.

What the jury said: The behaviour of Liverpool supporters did not cause or contribute to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles.“
This user liked this post: ClaretTony

2 Bee Holed
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:37 am
Been Liked: 548 times
Has Liked: 31 times
Location: South Manchester

Re: Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Post by 2 Bee Holed » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:12 am

Duckinfield has been charged with 'Gross negligence manslaughter'

"Where an act or omission of the defendant resulting in a victim’s death is grossly negligent, although it may be otherwise lawful, this is categorised as gross negligence manslaughter. The relevant test for this type of manslaughter is laid down in the case of Adomako decided in 1994. Generally speaking, the test looks at if the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased and if that duty was breached. Moreover, the breach should cause or significantly contribute towards the death of the victim and should be characterised as gross negligence."

If he is found guilty the sentencing guidelines were changed in 2018...to between 1 and 18 years in prison.

If he is sentenced as the law was in 1989, I think he could be simply fined!

They are also considering this charge for any Grenfell Tower culprits that can be found.

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10900
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5553 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Post by TheFamilyCat » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:39 pm

He was charged and tried for just with manslaughter initially wasn’t he? Didn’t realise that if they failed to get a conviction they can just change the charge and try again.

ClaretTony
Posts: 67807
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 3:07 pm
Been Liked: 32410 times
Has Liked: 5273 times
Location: Burnley
Contact:

Re: Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Post by ClaretTony » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:43 pm

TheFamilyCat wrote:He was charged and tried for just with manslaughter initially wasn’t he? Didn’t realise that if they failed to get a conviction they can just change the charge and try again.
It’s a retrial on the same charge

TheFamilyCat
Posts: 10900
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:56 pm
Been Liked: 5553 times
Has Liked: 208 times

Re: Hillsborough 1989 - today's court news

Post by TheFamilyCat » Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:58 pm

Ok, I read 2 Bee Holed’s comment to be that it was a new development.

Post Reply