shackattack
Well-Known Member
The jury at the Hillsborough inquests has been told one of its options is to consider whether the 96 victims of the disaster were unlawfully killed.
The coroner has started summing up after hearing nearly two years of evidence into the 1989 disaster. Sir John Goldring told the jury it would be asked if error, omission or circumstances contributed to the disaster. He said the question of how the 96 died was "the most controversial". There are certain words such as "crime" the jury should not use, he added. However, he said words such as "failure", "inappropriate" and "inadequate" could be used.
Over the next three weeks, the coroner will review evidence on how 96 Liverpool fans died at the FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield.
The jury is due to retire to consider its verdicts on 22 February.
from the liverpool echo-
The court heard that among the general questions, which cover topics including the planning and policing of the 1989 FA Cup semi-final and the emergency response, was a section asking the jury about unlawful killing.
The question read: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?”
The coroner told the court that according to law the jury could not name the person or people they regarded as responsible in their determination.
But, Sir John told the jury: “In order to answer ‘yes’ to that question, you would have to be sure that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of those 96 people.
“When answering this question we are looking at Mr Duckenfield’s conduct and his responsibility.”
He told the jury that in order to answer ‘yes’ to the question of whether the victims were unlawfully killed they must be sure of four points:
* Whether Mr Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96
The coroner said it was agreed by all, including Mr Duckenfield’s representatives, that Mr Duckenfield owed a duty of care to people attending the semi-final; the duty he owed was to take reasonable care to ensure people attending the semi-final could attend, watch and depart reasonably safely and that the standard of care he had to meet was of a reasonably careful and competent match commander in 1989.
* Whether Mr Duckenfield was in breach of the duty of care
The coroner said: “You must be sure that Mr Duckenfield’s actions were not those which a reasonably careful and competent match commander would have taken in 1989 so that the 96 people could attend, watch and depart reasonably safely.”
He added: “You should not blame Mr Duckenfield for mistakes made by others and for which he had no responsibility.
“Having said that, it would be possible to say that Mr Duckenfield breached his duty of care by failing, himself, to do or check things or to act on information provided by others or to order others to take certain action.”
* Whether Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care led to the 96 deaths
The coroner told the jurors that if they answered ‘yes’ to the unlawful killing question they must be sure that Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care caused the deaths.
He said: “It need not be the only cause.
“It is enough if it contributed to the deaths in a significant and not merely minimal way.”
* Whether the breach amounted to gross negligence
Sir John said: “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.”
He says the jury must also be sure that a reasonably competent and careful match commander, in his position, would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death to fans in the central pens.
He added: “You consider his conduct in its proper context 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.”
The coroner told the jury: “You should only answer yes to the question of whether the 96 people were unlawfully killed if you can be sure of all four requirements.”
The coroner has started summing up after hearing nearly two years of evidence into the 1989 disaster. Sir John Goldring told the jury it would be asked if error, omission or circumstances contributed to the disaster. He said the question of how the 96 died was "the most controversial". There are certain words such as "crime" the jury should not use, he added. However, he said words such as "failure", "inappropriate" and "inadequate" could be used.
Over the next three weeks, the coroner will review evidence on how 96 Liverpool fans died at the FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield.
The jury is due to retire to consider its verdicts on 22 February.
from the liverpool echo-
The court heard that among the general questions, which cover topics including the planning and policing of the 1989 FA Cup semi-final and the emergency response, was a section asking the jury about unlawful killing.
The question read: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?”
The coroner told the court that according to law the jury could not name the person or people they regarded as responsible in their determination.
But, Sir John told the jury: “In order to answer ‘yes’ to that question, you would have to be sure that David Duckenfield, the match commander, was responsible for the manslaughter by gross negligence of those 96 people.
“When answering this question we are looking at Mr Duckenfield’s conduct and his responsibility.”
He told the jury that in order to answer ‘yes’ to the question of whether the victims were unlawfully killed they must be sure of four points:
* Whether Mr Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96
The coroner said it was agreed by all, including Mr Duckenfield’s representatives, that Mr Duckenfield owed a duty of care to people attending the semi-final; the duty he owed was to take reasonable care to ensure people attending the semi-final could attend, watch and depart reasonably safely and that the standard of care he had to meet was of a reasonably careful and competent match commander in 1989.
* Whether Mr Duckenfield was in breach of the duty of care
The coroner said: “You must be sure that Mr Duckenfield’s actions were not those which a reasonably careful and competent match commander would have taken in 1989 so that the 96 people could attend, watch and depart reasonably safely.”
He added: “You should not blame Mr Duckenfield for mistakes made by others and for which he had no responsibility.
“Having said that, it would be possible to say that Mr Duckenfield breached his duty of care by failing, himself, to do or check things or to act on information provided by others or to order others to take certain action.”
* Whether Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care led to the 96 deaths
The coroner told the jurors that if they answered ‘yes’ to the unlawful killing question they must be sure that Mr Duckenfield’s breach of his duty of care caused the deaths.
He said: “It need not be the only cause.
“It is enough if it contributed to the deaths in a significant and not merely minimal way.”
* Whether the breach amounted to gross negligence
Sir John said: “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.”
He says the jury must also be sure that a reasonably competent and careful match commander, in his position, would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death to fans in the central pens.
He added: “You consider his conduct in its proper context 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.”
The coroner told the jury: “You should only answer yes to the question of whether the 96 people were unlawfully killed if you can be sure of all four requirements.”