On 15 April 1989 the Hillsborough tragedy occurred when 96 Liverpool fans lost their lives at the Sheffield Wednesday football ground.

The events of that day are well known as are the subsequent public inquiry hearings and findings.

A detailed criminal prosecution ultimately resulted, including consideration ‘into whether anyone was responsible for a ‘cover up’ of the true events and if witness statements were altered in such a way to amount to a criminal offence.’ (CPS Press Statement)

On 28 June 2017 the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) announced that following consideration of criminal charges it has decided to authorise charges against:

• the Match Commander for South Yorkshire Police (‘DD’) on the day of the disaster (for manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 men, women and children)

• Sheffield Wednesday Football Club’s company secretary and safety officer in 1989 (‘GM’) (for two offences of contravening a term of condition of a safety certificate contrary to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and one offence of failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may have been affected by his acts or omissions at work under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974)

• the solicitor (‘PM’) acting for the South Yorkshire Police during an Inquiry and the first inquests (jointly with DD and AF below, doing acts with intent to pervert the course of public justice relating to material changes made to witness statements.)

• a former Chief Superintendent of South Yorkshire Police (‘DD’) (for overseeing the process of amending the statements and..so did acts tending to pervert the course of justice)

• a former Detective Chief Inspector of South Yorkshire Police (‘AF’) (linked to process of changing the statements above – acts tending to pervert the course of justice) and

• a former officer with South Yorkshire Police and subsequently Chief Constable of Merseyside and West Yorkshire Police (‘NB’) (four offences of misconduct in public office relating to telling alleged lies about involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough and the culpability of fans. CPS alleges that as a senior police this was misconduct of such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.)

CHARGES BROUGHT:

Therefore, the offences to be pursued through prosecution are in summary: gross negligence manslaughter, misconduct in public office, doing acts tending and intending to pervert the course of justice, health and safety at work and safety of sports grounds offences.

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

In order to secure a conviction for this offence the Prosecution must in due course prove:

• there was a duty of care (here relating to the safety of those attending the Hillsborough Stadium as spectators in respect of the dangers from overcrowding and consequent crushing),
• breach of that care,
• the breach was gross negligence, and
• the negligence was a substantial cause of the deaths.

The Prosecution states it will allege in this case that there that ‘there was a failure to take reasonable care:

• to identify particular potential confining points and hazards to the safe entry of approximately 24,000 spectators arriving from the Leppings lane area of Hillsborough into the designated sections of the stadium;
• to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators yet to enter within the stadium;
• in good time to relieve crowding pressures on and from spectators seeking entry to the stadium;
• to sufficiently monitor and assess the number and situation of spectators in pens 3 and 4;
• in good time to prevent crushing to persons in pens three and four by the flow of spectators through the central tunnel.”

Contravening a Safety Certificate (Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975)

It is alleged here that the Company Secretary and senior manager of Sheffield

• ‘failed to agree, prior to the F.A. cup semi-final football match….with the Chief Constable, or the Police Officer….the methods of admission to be employed in connection with the said football match, in particular, the arrangements of and number of turnstiles to be used for admission into the west stand terraces and north-west terraces; or the commission of the said offence by the company was attributable to neglect on his part.’
• ‘failed to make and keep available for inspection records of the numbers of spectators admitted to each area of the Stadium mentioned in… the Safety Certificate, in particular the West Terrace and North West Terrace, during the F.A. cup semi-final football match; or the commission of the said offence by the company was attributable to neglect on his part.’

Failure to comply with Section 7 Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

It is alleged here that the Company Secretary and senior manager of Sheffield Wednesday ‘failed to take reasonable care for the health and safety of other persons who may have been affected by his acts or omissions at work, in that he:

• Failed to take reasonable care as the safety officer in respect of the drawing up and keeping up to date of records and plans of the ground

• Failed to take reasonable care as the safety officer in respect of arrangements for admission to the Hillsborough Stadium and particularly in respect of turnstiles being of such numbers as to admit at a rate whereby no unduly large crowds would be waiting for admission

• Failed to take reasonable care as the safety officer in respect of the drawing up of contingency plans, including arrangements with police for stopping an event, in particular, for coping with exceptionally large numbers of spectators arriving at the ground and to deal with situations where the available entrances at a ground have proved insufficient to stop unduly large crowds from gathering outside.

Perverting the course of justice charges

It is alleged the solicitor (PM) provided advice:

• ‘on the amendment or alteration of accounts of South Yorkshire Police officers in respect of events at Hillsborough Stadium on 15th April 1989 that he knew were to be provided to West Midlands Police’ and

• ‘drafted an addendum statement and advice in respect of the account of four South Yorkshire Police officers concerning the monitoring of pens in the stands at Hillsborough Stadium and sent the said advice and addendum statement to Peter Hayes’.

And that allegedly DD:

• ‘ordered the amendment or alteration of accounts of South Yorkshire Police officers in respect of the events at Hillsborough Stadium on 15th April 1989 that were provided to West Midlands Police’ and

• ‘provided to West Midlands Police accounts of South Yorkshire Police officers in respect of events at Hillsborough Stadium on 15th April 1989 that he knew had been altered or amended.’

And that AF:

• ‘amended or altered the accounts of South Yorkshire Police officers in respect of the events at Hillsborough Stadium on 15th April 1989 that he knew were to be provided to West Midlands Police.’

Misconduct in a Public Office x2

NB is accused of‘being a …. serving police officer…. wilfully misconducted himself to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in him, namely by:

• untruthfully describing his role in the response of the South Yorkshire Police Force to the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster to Sir David O’Dowd as ‘peripheral’ and

• untruthfully asserting in a statement made to the Merseyside Police Authority that he had “never attempted to shift blame onto the shoulders of Liverpool supporters” for the Hillsborough Stadium disaster

• causing, permitting or suffering a press release to be issued in his name which untruthfully asserted that he had “never, since hearing the Taylor evidence unfold, offered any other interpretation in public or private” than that the behaviour of supporters of Liverpool Football Club had not caused the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster.
• causing, permitting or suffering a press release to be issued in his name which untruthfully asserted he had never ‘besmirched’ supporters of Liverpool Football Club in relation to the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster.’

Following investigation some other parties are not to be the subject of any criminal proceedings for various legal and evidential reasons – these include six other police officers in respect of their conduct in planning for the match or on the day, Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service, and the Football Association (FA).

If you require information, advice, assistance or representation with regard to any investigation or proceedings faced by you or your business please contact our Regulatory Team whose details are:

Tim Ridyard on 01284 732111 or tim.ridyard@ashtonslegal.co.uk

NB the case facts set out above have been provided by the Crown Prosecution Service. The above information simply sets out a summary and is not a report or commentary on the case whose first hearing will take place on 9 August 2017 at Warrington Magistrates Court.