PaulC Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 This has come 30 years too late. The victims families cant get those 30 years back and whilst the charges are welcome, nobody has been convicted or served time for this yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 Beeb Quote The match commander on the day of the Hillsborough disaster David Duckenfield will face trial for the manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 football supporters, a judge has ruled. The decision to prosecute the former chief superintendent was made by Sir Peter Openshaw at Preston Crown Court who lifted a stay on his prosecution. An order preventing him being tried was imposed 18 years ago. Four other men will also face trial on charges related to Hillsborough. Mr Duckenfield, 73, was match commander at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest when 96 Liverpool fans were fatally injured in a crush in the terrace pens. Former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell is charged with health and safety, and safety at sports grounds offences. The trial of Mr Duckenfield and Mr Mackrell is currently listed to start on 10 September. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 48 minutes ago, snowychap said: Beeb Im probably out of step here, but the guy had to make split second decisions. It is easy to say with reference to numerous reports and the benefit of hindsight that he should have done this that and the other, he didn't have that option. I would have to question whether he would get a fair trail such is the momentum that this thing has got going now. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 1 hour ago, hippo said: Im probably out of step here, but the guy had to make split second decisions. It is easy to say with reference to numerous reports and the benefit of hindsight that he should have done this that and the other, he didn't have that option. It's a good job you won't be on the jury then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 20 minutes ago, snowychap said: It's a good job you won't be on the jury then. Thats a good point actually - wonder where the trail will be held ? and the jury selection process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, hippo said: Thats a good point actually - wonder where the trail will be held ? and the jury selection process Preston Crown Court. Jury processes would be much like any other, I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 He is 73, I cant really see him serving time if he is convicted. I imagine be a lengthy trial as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 7 hours ago, hippo said: Im probably out of step here, but the guy had to make split second decisions. It is easy to say with reference to numerous reports and the benefit of hindsight that he should have done this that and the other, he didn't have that option. I would have to question whether he would get a fair trail such is the momentum that this thing has got going now. I Agree, as you with hindsight and all the following reports it’s easy to point blame. But you have to ask, would anyone have acted differently in the same situations. That’s where the defence counsel hasn’t to show that he followed protocol and didn’t what anyone would do. The prosecuting counsel has to show without hindsight he acted negligently. I’m not sure that they will be able to prove negligence at the time, but I’m pretty certain he’ll still be found guilty as there is too much media attention on it. I’m surprised the judge allowed this to go public at this stage and not after the hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said: I’m surprised the judge allowed this to go public at this stage and not after the hearing. It has been public knowledge that this was due for trial in September this year (depending upon arguments heard and decisions made) since last year according to this: Quote David Duckenfield aims to block Hillsborough prosecution as Preston trial backed Hillsborough match commander David Duckenfield could go on trial in autumn next year in Preston but will attempt to block any prosecution, a court heard today. Duckenfield, 72, is scheduled to go before a jury at a trial starting on September 10 and lasting between ten and 12 weeks at Preston Crown Court, according to provisional details given at a pre-trial hearing at Preston on Wednesday. However, Duckenfield and five other defendants will first attempt to block any prosecution as an "abuse of process" on the grounds of delay and prejudicial publicity, the court heard. ... All the dates and the venue of Preston Crown Court are provisional and dependent on further judges' rulings following more legal argument. ... more on link Published: 6 September 2017 7:15PM Edited June 29, 2018 by snowychap 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted June 29, 2018 Share Posted June 29, 2018 59 minutes ago, mikeyp102 said: I Agree, as you with hindsight and all the following reports it’s easy to point blame. But you have to ask, would anyone have acted differently in the same situations. That’s where the defence counsel hasn’t to show that he followed protocol and didn’t what anyone would do. The prosecuting counsel has to show without hindsight he acted negligently. I’m not sure that they will be able to prove negligence at the time, but I’m pretty certain he’ll still be found guilty as there is too much media attention on it. I’m surprised the judge allowed this to go public at this stage and not after the hearing. But its not really justice - its just that the Hillsborough group have gotten so powerful that its a brave man who stands up to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post blandy Posted June 30, 2018 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted June 30, 2018 16 hours ago, hippo said: But its not really justice - its just that the Hillsborough group have gotten so powerful that its a brave man who stands up to them. That’s demonstrably untrue in every respect. Firstly, they had to battle and battle for years and years, with a succession of people to get a proper inquest into how their sons and daughters and fathers and brothers and husbands ended up dying in a football ground. At every stage they were obstructed, lied to, frustrated and blocked. Even with the help of some MPs and some journalists, it took nearly 30 years to get a proper inquest. And now someone who the inquest jury found was responsible for an act of manslaughter by gross negligence is going to be tried for that finding. That is justice. Belated, long overdue justice. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 30, 2018 Share Posted June 30, 2018 4 hours ago, blandy said: And now someone who the inquest jury found Just nitpicking a little but I think it's important (especially as a criminal case is due). They didn't find Duckenfield guilty, did they? That wasn't what they were asked. In order to find that the 96 were unlawfully killed, they had to be satisfied that the breach of the duty of care that he owed to those 96 caused the deaths and amounted to gross negligence - which they did. That has led to the CPS bringing criminal charges against him. He is innocent of those charges at this point in time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted June 30, 2018 Moderator Share Posted June 30, 2018 3 hours ago, snowychap said: Just nitpicking a little but I think it's important (especially as a criminal case is due). They didn't find Duckenfield guilty, did they? That wasn't what they were asked. In order to find that the 96 were unlawfully killed, they had to be satisfied that the breach of the duty of care that he owed to those 96 caused the deaths and amounted to gross negligence - which they did. That has led to the CPS bringing criminal charges against him. He is innocent of those charges at this point in time. He was found to be "responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence" due to a breach of his duty of care”. I take the point that the inquiry wasn’t a criminal trial, that’s next, and therefore he hasn’t (yet) been found guilty in a criminal court, but the inquiry jury did find he was to blame. So guilty in that sense. Thanks for pointing out the problem wording, which I’ve edited 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Kind of bitterly ironic to read people in this thread taking pity on an old man facing a probable stretch in prison, when precisely the whole reason why he's an old man now is an ongoing cover-up operation which he was intimately involved in. He deserves whatever he gets. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 39 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Kind of bitterly ironic to read people in this thread taking pity on an old man facing a probable stretch in prison, when precisely the whole reason why he's an old man now is an ongoing cover-up operation which he was intimately involved in. He deserves whatever he gets. Nope that just aging 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Doesn't seem likes its one way traffic anymore https://news.sky.com/story/former-west-yorkshire-police-chief-sir-norman-bettison-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-hillsborough-11478306 "Former police chief Sir Norman Bettison will not be prosecuted for misconduct in a public office over the Hillsborough disaster. Four charges against him were dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on Tuesday "following a review of the evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 20 hours ago, hippo said: Doesn't seem likes its one way traffic anymore https://news.sky.com/story/former-west-yorkshire-police-chief-sir-norman-bettison-will-not-be-prosecuted-over-hillsborough-11478306 "Former police chief Sir Norman Bettison will not be prosecuted for misconduct in a public office over the Hillsborough disaster. Four charges against him were dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on Tuesday "following a review of the evidence". No shock there as that's what I expected. Absolute farce 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Demitri_C said: No shock there as that's what I expected. Absolute farce I think you can lean on people to write reports - but a criminal defence lawyer is a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Neil_D Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 21 hours ago, Demitri_C said: "following a review of the evidence". It feels like It's more about who the crime affects as oppose to who does the crime. (Eg Grenfell). If 95 people were crushed to death in the Albert Hall at the Proms I suspect it would all of been a bit differnet somehow, maybe with people in prison and everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted September 10, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts