Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Hillsborough jury retires to consider its verdicts



Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
After two years of the second Hilssborough Inquest, including a month of summing up, the jury of seven women and three men is finally to retire to consider its verdicts. They were given a general questionnaire, with 14 questions, to complete. The jury also has to complete individual questionnaires for each of the 96, recording a cause and time of death for all of the victims.

Question one

Do you agree with the following statement: On April 15 1989, 96 people died in the disaster as a result of crushing in the central pens of the Leppings Lane terrace, following the admission of a large number of supporters to the stadium through the exit gates.


Question two

Was there any error or omission in police planning and preparation for the semi-final on April 15, 1989, which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission in planning or preparation MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

They were given a list of factors to consider, including whether the system of allowing fans to “find their own level” on the terrace was satisfactory and whether the selection of senior officers should have been different.


Question three

Was there any error or omission in policing on the day of the match which caused or contributed to a dangerous situation developing at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission in policing MAY have caused or contributed.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

They were given a list of factors to consider, including whether senior officers should have done more to identify the risk of a dangerous build up of fans and what action they did take to deal with the situation.


Question four

Was there any error or omission by commanding officers which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission by commanding officers MAY have caused or contributed to the crush.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

A list of considerations for the jury included whether it should have been obvious to officers in the police control box that the central pens were unusually or dangerously overcrowded and whether commanding officers could and should have taken further action in response to the packing of the central pens.


Question five

When the order was given to open the exit gates at the Leppings Lane end of the stadium, was there any error or omission by the commanding officers in the control box which caused or contributed to the crush on the terrace?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission by commanding officers MAY have caused or contributed to the crush.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

The jury were advised to consider factors such as whether commanding officers could have given any further order to stop more supporters going down the tunnel to the central pens.


Question six

Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?

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 said they would have to be sure that Mr Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 people who died, that he breached that duty of care, that his breach caused their deaths and that the breach amounted to “gross negligence”.


Question seven

Was there any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles?”

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any behaviour MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.

If they answer yes to either questions they will be asked: “Was that behaviour unusual or unforeseeable?”

They are able to give an explanation if they want to.

The jury were given a list of considerations including whether fans behaved in a way which was unusually resistant of police control and whether there were significant numbers of fans without tickets.


Question eight

Were there any features of the design, construction and layout of the stadium which you consider were dangerous or defective and which caused or contributed to the disaster?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any features MAY have caused or contributed to the crush.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

The jury were advised to consider factors such as whether the Leppings Lane entrance had too few turnstiles for a capacity match and whether the fencing around pens made any contribution to the disaster.


Question nine

Was there any error or omission in the safety certification and oversight of Hillsborough Stadium that caused or contributed to the disaster?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any errors or omissions in the safety certification or oversight MAY have caused or contributed to the crush.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

The jury were advised to consider factors such as including whether the capacity of the terrace should have been clarified, reconsidered and/or recalculated after changes to the stadium and whether those responsible for the safety certification could and should have raised concerns.


Question 10

Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday and its staff in the management of the stadium and/or preparation for the semi-final match on April 15, 1989, which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed on the day of the match?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

A list of considerations included whether the club should have done more in preparing for the match.


Question 11

Was there any error or omission by Sheffield Wednesday and its staff on April 15, 1989, which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed at the Leppings Lane turnstiles and in the west terrace?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission MAY have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

A list of factors to consider included whether those in the club control room had a responsibility to monitor the conditions at the turnstiles.


Question 12

Should Eastwood and Partners (structural engineers) have done more to detect and advise on any unsafe or unsatisfactory features of Hillsborough Stadium which caused or contributed to the disaster?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether Eastwood and Partners should have done more to advise on features which MAY have caused or contributed to the disaster.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

The jury were advised to consider factors such as whether they correctly calculated capacity figures for the West Terrace of the ground in 1979.


Question 13

After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the police which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether any error or omission MAY have caused or contributed to the loss of lives.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

Factors to consider included whether commanding officers should have taken steps to relieve the crush at an earlier stage and whether officers at the perimeter fence reacted appropriately and promptly.


Question 14

After the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop, was there any error or omission by the ambulance service (SYMAS) which caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster?

If they answer no, the jury will be asked whether there was any error or omission which MAY have caused or contributed to the loss of lives.

They will be able to explain their answer if they wish to.

The jury were advised to consider factors including whether SYMAS officers at the stadium could have done more to find out the nature and seriousness of the emergency and react to it.
 

KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,671
Wolsingham, County Durham
Is this a normal jury, ie plucked randomly from the public, or a specially made up one? Those are extremely searching questions and, after 2 years, they must be fed up to the back teeth with this. Do they have to come up with a collective answer, or do they do them individually and the answers collated? If the former, it could take them months.
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
Is this a normal jury, ie plucked randomly from the public, or a specially made up one? Those are extremely searching questions and, after 2 years, they must be fed up to the back teeth with this. Do they have to come up with a collective answer, or do they do them individually and the answers collated? If the former, it could take them months.

It's an inquest - so a 'normal' jury.

The questions they are answering are in direct correlation to the evidence they have been hearing. I've dipped in and out of the Inquest as it has been reported. Some of those questions the jury have been asked will have been answered already by those who stand in the firing line. They were some stark confessions during this time. There were also some flat denials - including from those who had some level of responsibility.

I doubt some questions will be as hotly debated amongst the jury as others.

Of course, if they answer 'no' to Q1, everything else is academic.
 


Paul Reids Sock

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
4,458
Paul Reids boot
The thing that immediately sprang to mind for me.

As this is a 'normal' jury. Have they had to have two years off work? or has it been a week here/a week there?

Their employers (and them) must be fed up after two years
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
The thing that immediately sprang to mind for me.

As this is a 'normal' jury. Have they had to have two years off work? or has it been a week here/a week there?

Their employers (and them) must be fed up after two years

They get expenses.

But yes, it's people who, for whatever reason, were only going to be available for the long-haul. They knew this right at the top.
 

Paul Reids Sock

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
4,458
Paul Reids boot
They get expenses.

But yes, it's people who, for whatever reason, were only going to be available for the long-haul. They knew this right at the top.

I guess that could be seen as a bit bizarre and not a representative sample or peers?

This is a complete aside and by no means am I questioning their integrity
 


Pevenseagull

Anti-greed coalition
Jul 20, 2003
19,474
Of course, if they answer 'no' to Q1, everything else is academic.

I don't see how answering 'no' to the other questions is going to be unequivocal given the requirement to then go into what 'may' have contributed.

Is this just going to be strung out until enough people who were responsible (or may have been responsible) have died so they can take the blame?
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
I don't see how answering 'no' to the other questions is going to be unequivocal given the requirement to then go into what 'may' have contributed.

Is this just going to be strung out until enough people who were responsible (or may have been responsible) have died so they can take the blame?

Not sure what you're saying.

Are you implying there is a witch-hunt?
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
I guess that could be seen as a bit bizarre and not a representative sample or peers?

This is a complete aside and by no means am I questioning their integrity

This isn't a trial, it's an inquest.

The jury is there to weigh up the evidence, and reach a verdict, not try an individual.
 


Paul Reids Sock

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
4,458
Paul Reids boot
This isn't a trial, it's an inquest.

The jury is there to weigh up the evidence, and reach a verdict, not try an individual.

Ah of course. I hadn't thought of that.

Does that mean that if they find that the guy in charge was at fault he will have to go to trial and not be convicted here?

I am really not very clued up when it comes to legal matters
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market
Ah of course. I hadn't thought of that.

Does that mean that if they find that the guy in charge was at fault he will have to go to trial and not be convicted here?

I am really not very clued up when it comes to legal matters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquests_in_England_and_Wales

It is not for the inquest to ascertain "how the deceased died" or "in what broad circumstances", but "how the deceased came by his death", a more limited question. Moreover, it is not the purpose of the inquest to determine, or appear to determine, criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame. For example, where a prisoner hanged himself in a cell, he came by his death by hanging and it was not the role of the inquest to enquire into the broader circumstances such as the alleged neglect of the prison authorities that might have contributed to his state of mind or given him the opportunity. However, the inquest should set out as many of the facts as the public interest requires.
 

Paul Reids Sock

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
4,458
Paul Reids boot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquests_in_England_and_Wales

It is not for the inquest to ascertain "how the deceased died" or "in what broad circumstances", but "how the deceased came by his death", a more limited question. Moreover, it is not the purpose of the inquest to determine, or appear to determine, criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame. For example, where a prisoner hanged himself in a cell, he came by his death by hanging and it was not the role of the inquest to enquire into the broader circumstances such as the alleged neglect of the prison authorities that might have contributed to his state of mind or given him the opportunity. However, the inquest should set out as many of the facts as the public interest requires.

Nice, thank you!

And sorry for the daft questions
 


Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market


Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Oct 27, 2003
20,922
The arse end of Hangleton
They were summoned for jury service. There ain't much negotiation involved!

When you are assigned a 'case' as a part of a jury, if they think the case will run for more than two weeks then they ask you if that will cause you any problems. More often than not you are excused that case if you say it will cause you problems.
 
Aug 11, 2003
2,724
The Open Market

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here