Duckenfield on trial

[stripeyfox]

21 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

This miscreant, Duckenfield, is now saying the gate had been "forced". Well it certainly wasn't Police forced!! Put yourself in the place of a fan who had travelled all the way to Hillsborough with a ticket and you were to miss out on such an imprtant fixture. The fact still remain that Duckenfield was out of his depth, hadn't a clue and not only witnessed but was the single cause of the greatest loss of life we have seen in English football. The prat stated "the match should have been abandoned but but he didn't want to make the announcement at that point as had a lot of angry people and it could cause disturbances". So, allow the deaths instead, what a bloody muppet!! 

He hadn't got a clue and made no attempt to familiarise himself with the stadium or the plan. He was totally winging it.

 

[Rusko187]

I think he'll get done for Manslaughter, negligence or "didn't know" is not an excuse in legal standings. If he didn't familiarise himself with the stadium or plan ahead of the game then in my opinion he's failed in his job badly.

[Wymsey]

The jury has retired to consider verdicts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-47693265

[Guest MattP]

No Verdict reached - possible retrial.

[Nick]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

No Verdict reached - possible retrial.

When trying to make sense of evidence which is historical, its so difficult for a jury to come to a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

 

For example many cases which involve violence that have taken 12 months or more to get to court are thrown out due to unreliable witness testimony due to time elapsed. Any decent cross examination will tear witness testimony apart when asking for detail and unpicking inconsistencies and uncertainties.

 

Tough gig - not a decision I would like to be making in all honesty.

[stripeyfox]

Hillsborough police chief David Duckenfield cleared of manslaughter

• 2 minutes ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with WhatsApp
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share

Related Topics

• David Duckenfield retrial

Image copyrightPA MEDIA Image captionDavid Duckenfield was in charge of policing the 1989 FA Cup semi-final

Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield has been found not guilty of the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans in the 1989 disaster.

Former South Yorkshire Police Ch Supt Duckenfield, 75, was in charge of the FA Cup semi-final in which 96 fans were fatally injured.

Men, women and children were crushed on the Leppings Lane terrace.

Mr Duckenfield, of Ferndown, Dorset, was cleared after a seven-week retrial at Preston Crown Court.

Due to the law at the time, there can be no prosecution over the death of the 96th victim, Tony Bland.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is because he died more than a year and a day after his injuries were caused.

The jury at Mr Duckenfield's original trial earlier this year failed to agree a verdict.

• Live reaction as David Duckfield is cleared of manslaughter
• Timeline of the 1989 stadium disaster

Barry Devonside, whose son Christopher, 18, died in the disaster, said: "I'm shocked and stunned by the verdict of the jury.

"We, the families, have fought for 30 years valiantly."

Paul Robinson, whose brother Steven was killed in the stadium crush, said: "As a family we would like to thank all those who have supported us over the years in our quest for justice and accountability.

"We firmly believe that we have done everything in our power to do right by our Steven and we walk away from this case with our dignity and our heads held high."

Mr Duckenfield's wife, Ann, went over to comfort her husband in the courtroom.

Image captionThe people who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster

Analysis

Judith Moritz, BBC North of England correspondent

The acquittal of David Duckenfield is the latest twist in the history of a disaster which has lasted 30 years. For all that time, the families of those who died, and the survivors of the crush, have campaigned for justice and accountability.

David Duckenfield has now stood trial 3 times. The first two juries - in Leeds 19 years ago, and in Preston earlier this year - were unable to reach verdicts. Now, at the third time of asking, a jury has made a clear decision about the Hillsborough match commander's criminal liability.

He was charged with the gross negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans at an FA Cup Semi Final in Sheffield in 1989. Legally, the 96th victim, Tony Bland, could not be included in the prosecution as he died nearly 4 years later.

Mr Duckenfield did not dispute that he ordered the opening of a gate at Hillsborough to let fans in, or that he failed to close the tunnel to the terraces which were already full. In 2015 at the Hillsborough Inquests he accepted that this was the direct cause of the 96 deaths. But an inquest is not a criminal court, and so it was for another jury to decide whether Mr Duckenfield's mistakes amounted to gross negligence manslaughter.

The crown's case was that the Chief Superintendent's failings were so extraordinary that they met that test.

But the jury accepted the defence case that the 75 year old was a target of blame who was unfairly singled out for prosecution.

He will now be able to resume his life in retirement on the south coast. But the Hillsborough families and survivors will find the outcome hard to take… and will ask hard questions about the £65m spent on a criminal investigation which has ended with no one convicted for so many lives lost.

[Super_horns]

Naturally the families aren't happy and doubt this is the last we hear about this fight for justice .

[stripeyfox]

1 minute ago, Super_horns said:

Naturally the families aren't happy and doubt this is the last we hear about this fight for justice .

I'm not sure where they can go after this. He's been tried twice now. 

 

The inquest laid the blame firmly at his door, maybe that is the best the families will achieve.

 

 

[hackneyfox]

But the jury accepted the defence case that the 75 year old was a target of blame who was unfairly singled out for prosecution.

 

So because they failed to charge others he is found not guilty?

 

What an appalling defence and beyond me as to why it was allowed.

[LiberalFox]

Not surprising.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

But the jury accepted the defence case that the 75 year old was a target of blame who was unfairly singled out for prosecution.

 

So because they failed to charge others he is found not guilty?

 

What an appalling defence and beyond me as to why it was allowed.

The reality is that a lot of people ****ed up that day and Duckenfield was one of them.

 

From the evidence the jury heard they felt he was not guilty of a criminal offence, that isn't saying he did nothing wrong as he evidently did but we have to trust the court of law.

 

 

[worth_the_wait]

One of the problems with an inquest, is that it doesn't have many summary conclusions or verdicts it can give - in a case where the basic facts are pretty well established.
 
In the case of a disaster where it can be shown exactly what happened and why people died, you've only really got one of 2 possible verdicts: either "accident" or "unlawfully killed".  
 
In years gone by, an "open" verdict was quite common.  These in theory meant "don't know", but I think they were also used in situations where the inquest couldn't really determine the exact root cause of who was to blame.  It was perhaps a bit of a fudge, but it was sort of halfway house between accident and lawful killing.

 

Nowadays we don't really accept anything is just an "accident", so if there is any doubt, an inquest jury is likely to give an "unlawful killing" verdict.

 

The trouble with this ... is it then automatically starts criminal prosecution proceedings.   But finding enough evidence to show that someone is "criminally negligent" - and that will stand up in a criminal court - is not an easy matter.

 

Bear in mind also that in criminal courts, any burden of proof has to be "beyond reasonable doubt", and not just on the "balance of probabilities".

 

Hence the reason, an inquest can say it was "unlawful killing", but the criminal court will ultimately find a defendent innocent of unlawful killing (manslaughter) charges.

 

[stripeyfox]

11 hours ago, Lionator said:

The reality is that a lot of people ****ed up that day and Duckenfield was one of them.

 

From the evidence the jury heard they felt he was not guilty of a criminal offence, that isn't saying he did nothing wrong as he evidently did but we have to trust the court of law.

 

 

Duckenfield made the biggest f**k ups of all though in failing to even read the safety plan, not adequately plan the crowd control, failed to familiarise himself with the layout of Hillsborough and then after the flawed decision to open Gate C without closing the tunnel he then told a bare faced lie as people lay dying on the pitch that the fans had forced the gate open.

 

But, as you say, the jury has decided he was not guilty of a criminal offence. I don't know if him being sent to prison would have made much difference - it's all 30 years too late. But the inquest a couple of years ago laid the facts bare and exonerated the fans - I guess that will have to do.

 

 

 

[David Hankey]

It seems to me that the Judge committed another "crime" yesterday compounding the dreadful actions of the so-called inexperienced Match Commander on that fateful day. Scot free doesn't come anywhere near it.

[Voll Blau]

2 hours ago, David Hankey said:

It seems to me that the Judge committed another "crime" yesterday compounding the dreadful actions of the so-called inexperienced Match Commander on that fateful day. Scot free doesn't come anywhere near it.

Why, what did the judge do? A jury found him not guilty.

 

I've every sympathy with the families and really hope they get justice for what happened, but the criminal burden of proof is high and, with the evidence available given the passage of time, clearly wasn't enough for 12 of them to feel they could convict.

[Guest MattP]

On 15/01/2019 at 21:09, MattP said:

I get the feeling some won't be happy until someone swings for this. 

 

Seems a politically motivated witch hunt but we'll leave it to due process.

 

Given the inquest into Hillsborough was only won on a majority verdict though I doubt you'll get a unanimous conviction in court on someone for asking for a gate to be opened under pressure.

As I expected.

 

Feel for the families but you can't just go around locking people up to make them feel better.

[Corky]

2 hours ago, David Hankey said:

It seems to me that the Judge committed another "crime" yesterday compounding the dreadful actions of the so-called inexperienced Match Commander on that fateful day. Scot free doesn't come anywhere near it.

The judge can't overturn the jury's verdict.

[David Hankey]

5 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Why, what did the judge do? A jury found him not guilty.

 

I've every sympathy with the families and really hope they get justice for what happened, but the criminal burden of proof is high and, with the evidence available given the passage of time, clearly wasn't enough for 12 of them to feel they could convict.

If you have read the full story you will know Judge Openshaw directed the jury at Preston Crown Court. The passage of time should not diminish the crime. It is not the fault of the bereaved families that 30 long years has elapsed. This has been caused by the prevarication of those, for whatever reason, who don't want to see justice done and it irks me to say they have won.

[David Hankey]

3 hours ago, Corky said:

The judge can't overturn the jury's verdict.

I haven't said the Judge can overturn the jury's verdict but he did have a say in directing the jury in the way he did knowing the facts of what had happened on that day 30 years ago and what has happened and been said since. Let's make no mistake about this is it is an attempt by the Establishment to save one of their own.

[yorkie1999]

I know everyone wants to hang him high but i think he's the fall guy in a long list of culpable bodies. I mean, what idiot thinks that the way to control a crowd is to put them in cages where there's no escape. One mistake, such as what happened at HIllsbourough through one person either forgetting, not realising or purposly not instructing a gate  to be closed before another one was opened and there's going to eventually be a tragedy. It's no coincidence that after the hillsborough disaster the fences started coming down and other methods were used for crowd control, why? because the powers that be realised they'd cocked up, how come they've never been held to be responsible. Who, in the FA, decided to carry on using hillsborough for semi finals even though there'd been problems with crushes in the leppings lane end before due to the fact of it's bottle neck problems and the one terrace being split up into three pans which the invalidated the grounds safety certificate. I know it was a tragedy that all those fans died but imagine if they'd been a fire in there at some time, with nowhere to escape!! Football fans really were treated like animals by the establishment.

[David Hankey]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I know everyone wants to hang him high but i think he's the fall guy in a long list of culpable bodies. I mean, what idiot thinks that the way to control a crowd is to put them in cages where there's no escape. One mistake, such as what happened at HIllsbourough through one person either forgetting, not realising or purposly not instructing a gate  to be closed before another one was opened and there's going to eventually be a tragedy. It's no coincidence that after the hillsborough disaster the fences started coming down and other methods were used for crowd control, why? because the powers that be realised they'd cocked up, how come they've never been held to be responsible. Who, in the FA, decided to carry on using hillsborough for semi finals even though there'd been problems with crushes in the leppings lane end before due to the fact of it's bottle neck problems and the one terrace being split up into three pans which the invalidated the grounds safety certificate. I know it was a tragedy that all those fans died but imagine if they'd been a fire in there at some time, with nowhere to escape!! Football fans really were treated like animals by the establishment.

"Treated like animals"? If you know anything about the history of football you will realise why fences were introduced. If fans hadn't behaved so appallingly fences would never have been erected. What Duckenfield should have done was to order the match officials to delay the kick off. He made the wrong decision and 95 fans lost their lives. That is the stark truth of what happened on that fateful day.

[yorkie1999]

12 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

"Treated like animals"? If you know anything about the history of football you will realise why fences were introduced. If fans hadn't behaved so appallingly fences would never have been erected. What Duckenfield should have done was to order the match officials to delay the kick off. He made the wrong decision and 95 fans lost their lives. That is the stark truth of what happened on that fateful day.

I know why the fences were there, I’ve been going football since the mid 70’s, but not everyone was a hooligan, the point I’m making is if the authorities started taking the fences down after hillsborough and then managed to control football fans, why did they put them up in the first place and why are they not being held accountable for the decision to allow them to be erected .

[worth_the_wait]

Fences were put up at football grounds by clubs during the 1970's and 80's, as that seemed the most sensible thing to do at the time.

 

The fences at the front stopped fans invading the pitch (and getting to other fans, via the pitch).

 

The fences dividing terraces into pens was primarily done to segregate fans ie stop them fighting with each other.   And as a follow-on, to allow different numbers of away fans to be handled according to demand.    

 

Fences were also added at some clubs to stop lateral movement, and simply to divide the crowd into smaller manageable units.  (this was why our spion kop was divided into pens 1/2/3/4 in the early 70's).

 

It's worth poining out that clubs didn't do this for the fun of it ... they didn't have shares in British Steel!   It was time-consuming, costly, reduced the ground capacity, and was a right pain for fans trying to watch a game through steel barriers and wire messing.

 

They did it because they felt it was the only thing that would work.   I repeat, at the time, It was thought that it was the right thing to do.   (along with practically every other major club in Europe).

 

Most people seemed to tolerate them, even if not liking them.    That consensus held true until 15th April 1989.

 

Then we had the terrible disaster, that made everyone in football (The FA, clubs, police, emergency services, fans) re-appraise the situation.

 

So the fences came down ... pretty much overnight ... as now they didn't seem such a good idea.

[David Hankey]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I know why the fences were there, I’ve been going football since the mid 70’s, but not everyone was a hooligan, the point I’m making is if the authorities started taking the fences down after hillsborough and then managed to control football fans, why did they put them up in the first place and why are they not being held accountable for the decision to allow them to be erected .

because some hooligans were uncontrollable, remember the pitch invasions. The game was rife with them Leeds/Millwall/Birmingham and more. The fences were not the problem at Hillsborough, it was what was allowed to happen before the crush and the incorrect decision of the Match Commander.

[Leeds Fox]

On 15/01/2019 at 21:13, yorkie1999 said:

Dunno, all I know is if I worked at a football club opening and shutting gates and there were 5000 odd people trying to get in and had experience of the problems that hillsborough had had in previous years, I’d have thought hang on a mo. 

 

Working under the instructions of a senior police officer (or any other similar job) doesn’t afford you an opportunity to make those calls. 

 

The bloke opening the gate will have been able to see a tiny portion of what was going on around the ground, where Duckenfield would have had information regarding the bigger picture. 

 

Let’s say he doesn’t open the gate after being ordered to do so. Causing a crush outside of the ground with the blame falling fully on his head. It must have absolute chaos outside, he received his order and carried it out. 

 

If you’re saying you wouldn’t have done it (whether right or wrong), you’re talking absolute sh!t.