pc>w 5/3 - hillsborough independent...

H am m ond Suddards

S O L I C I T O R S

STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL FOR ADDRESSEE ONLYIan Daines Esq Assistant Chief Constable South Yorkshire Police Police Headquarters Snig Hill Sheffield S3 8LY

Our Ref:

MLS.JH

Dear M r Daines

Adlington -v- M urray, Adlington -v- Duckenfield

Further to our various telephone conversations would you now please find herewith, by way of a record o f what has gone on since last weekend copies o f the file notes, correspondence and other notes listed in the attached Schedule being matters dealt with by me in Peter M etcalf s absence.

The main thing for you to consider at present is the Schedule to the CPS letter and their request for your assistance. It is now 11.40 am on Christmas Eve and I am leaving the office. I have still not heard from CPS of any decision on whether they will give any disclosure ahead of resolution o f the Judicial Review.

I am now passing the file back to Peter.

Vnnrg ginrprplv_______________________________________H

'Z T X I^ 7 1 X IT 1 7 D - iJ I I X n r E X 1 3 Z W '

ldaines.dec24

Your Ref: Date:

ACC ID NMH 24 December 1998

Pc>W 5/3Trinity Court

16 John Dalton Street

Manchester M60 8HS

Telephone (0161) 830 5000

DX No. 14347 Manchester 1

Fax (0161) 830 5001

[email protected]

Offices also at:

2 Park Lane Leeds LS3 1ESTelephone (0113) 284 7000 Fax (0113) 284 7001

7 Devonshire Square Cutlers Gardens London EC2M 4YHTelephone (0171) 655 1000 Fax (0171) 655 1001

Pennine House 39-45 Well Street Bradford BD1 5NUTelephone (01274) 734700 Fax (01274) 307239

Suite 688 Lloyd’s One Lime Street London EC3M 7HATelephone (0171) 327 3388/3399 Fax (0171) 621 1217

Avenue Louise 250 1050 Brussels BelgiumTelephone (00) 32 2 627 7676 Fax (00) 32 2 627 7686

A list o f Partners can be viewed at the above address. This firm is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business.

SCHEDULE OF NOTES AND PAPERS DEALT

WITH BY MLS

21-24 DECEMBER 1998

ACC SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE - HILLSBOROUGH

SCHEDULE OF NOTES AND PAPERS DEALT W ITH BY MLS

21 - 24 DECEMBER 1998

File Notes

1. MLS/Ian Daines - 23 December 1998, 2.30 pm.

2. MLS/Walker Morris - 23 December 1998, 2.10 pm.

3. MLS/George Croston - 23 December 1998, 10.00 am.

4. MLS/Clerk to Miss Louise Varty - 22 December 1998.

5. MLS/Ian Daines - 21 December 1998, 3.00 pm.

6. MLS/Miss Adlington - 21 December 1998, 2.00 pm.

7. Hearing before the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate - 21 December 1998, 11.15 am - 2.00 pm.

8. Pre-Hearing meeting - 21 December 1998, 10.15 am.

9. Pre-Court preparation - 21 December 1998.

10. Meeting with Counsel - 21 December 1998.

11. Meeting with Messrs. Harrison, Isaacs and Jones - 21 December 1998.

12. Telephone conversation with George Croston, CPS - 21 December 1998,10.15 am.

Correspondence

1. Croston, CPS to Hammond Suddards with 11 page Schedule - 22 December 1998, 17.45 hrs.

2. Croston, CPS to Hammond Suddards - 23 December 1998, 11.02 am.

3. Walker Morris to Hammond Suddards - 23 December 1998, 13.12 hrs.

4. Walker Morris to Hammond Suddards - 23 December 1998, 13.51 hrs.

5. Hammond Suddards to Walker Morris - 23 December 1998 (about 2.00 pm).

6. Hammond Suddards to Croston, CPS - 23 December 1998 (about 3.00 pm).

7. Walker Morris to Hammond Suddards with copy letter o f 22 December HFSGto Clerk to South Yorkshire Police Authority - 23 December 1998, 17.05 hrs.

Miscellaneous

1. Draft Skeleton Argument by Miss Louise Varty.

2. Submissions as to Issue o f Summonses with timetable and extract fromHansard being the document handed to M r Shepherd by Miss Adlington at 2.00 pm on 21 December 1998.

Schedulehillsborough. dec24

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:

South Yorkshire Police - Assistant Chief Constable

Hillsborough

MLS

23 December 1998

%

2.30 pm

I spoke to Ian Daines and told him again o f the correspondence and discussions with CPS and I also told him o f the Walker Morris letters and the reply which I proposed to send.

He agreed that in view of his impending holiday there was no point in sending him anything now but that I would get everything in the post by surface mail to him so that he saw it on 4 January.

He said his only other point to make would be that when he came back on 4 January there was no way that this was going to be top o f his list o f priorities as he had all his normal policing responsibilities and no doubt as usual there would have been pillage and mayhem taking place in Sheffield over Christmas.

He confirmed that Hammond Suddards do not act for the South Yorkshire Police Authority but he said that he had seen the letter to the Authority which had been sent by HFSG and is referred to by Manning. He said that HFSG have threatened to judicially review the decision o f South Yorkshire to fund the Defence o f the officers. He thought that the concept was ludicrous.

He was in agreement with the letter which I propose to send to Walker Morris which might help them in their endeavours to have the case de-listed on 7 January.

He was extremely amused by the CPS wanting South Yorkshire to consent to production by CPS o f the various documents. He said that his personal view would be that he would give HFSG nothing at all or as little as he could get away with.

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

23 December 1998

2.10 pm

I received a second letter today from Walker Morris and have telephoned and left a message for Mr Manning who is out through his secretary to inform him that my understanding is that Hammond Suddards acts for the South Yorkshire Police and in particular for the Assistant Chief Constable and does not act for the South Yorkshire Police Authority and therefore we have not seen the letter which he is referring to as a letter sent by HFSG to the South Yorkshire Police Authority.

I am writing him a letter to the same effect.

FILE NOTE

Client Name: South Yorkshire Police - Assistant Chief Constable

HillsboroughMatter:

Fee Earner: MLS

23 December 1998Date;

Time Engaged:

George Croston o f CPS York phoned MLS and said that he was sending a properly typed letter to supplement the hand-written letter which he had faxed at just before 5.00 pm on 22 December and which had included schedules.

give disclosure before the Judicial Review proceedings had been resolved nor had he received a decision as to disclosure o f CPS reasons for their decision not to intervene in the prosecution. He said that he expected a decision in relation to disclosure o f the material by Christmas Eve but did not expect a decision in relation to the reasons for non-intervention until some time in January. I confirmed to him that the ACC was disinclined to give any disclosure until the Judicial Review proceedings had been resolved and that responding to the request made in his letters to us o f 22 and 23 December also clearly involved work which both the ACC and ourselves would prefer not to do if in fact the proceedings were going to be stayed by the Divisional Court.

He asked me if I could indicate when the ACC would be able to respond to the requests in his letters o f 22 and 23 December. I said that would not be possible until the New Year. I gave the reason as this: the absence of the ACC and his advisers on holiday over the Christmas and New Year period. Mr Croston said that he himself is on holiday from 24 December until 4 January and was more than happy not to have a reply as he had no intention o f breaking his Christmas holidays to come back to deal with this.

He confirmed that I did not need to reply in writing to his letters as he now understood the position o f the ACC from our telephone conversation namely that the letter would be given attention in January.

We had a brief general discussion about the proceedings set for 7 January and he shared my view that the date was absurdly early. He has no intention even if he is advised by London to give disclosure o f actually sending any material at all to the HFSG. All that he proposes to do if he has the ACC’s consent as requested in the letter o f 23 December and a direction to that effect from London would be to invite HFSG to attend at CPS in York and allow them to view the material and to have any of it copied at their expense.

He said that he had still not received a decision from London either as to whether CPS would

He agreed therefore that even if the decision was to proceed with disclosure there was no possibility o f effective disclosure being given even of the limited CPS material until some time after 7 January.

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

22 December 1998

%

Telephoned clerk to Miss Louise Varty on and booked Miss Varty to do thenext hearing o f this case on 7 January at 10.00 am at Leeds Magistrates’ Court. I told the clerk we were well pleased with Miss Varty’s work and the clerk was gratified because she had recommended her for this particular job.

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

21 December 1998

3.00 pm

Telephone call between MLS and ACC Daines. MLS reported on what had happened. ACC Daines said that he was minded to send a letter to the HFSG asking them what they would like first, second and third and setting out some terms as to the basis on which voluntary disclosure might be given by South Yorkshire Police but only once the Judicial Review proceedings have been resolved.

MLS said he would draft a letter for consideration by ACC Daines after consultation with PCM. Later the same afternoon MLS spoke with PCM who was in broad agreement with the concept o f sending a letter to HFSG but wanted to be careful as to what was said having regard to HS letter to HFSG of 14 December in which we had said that ACC would comply with CPS/DPP guidance both before and after the decision as to whether or not to intervene. PCM referred MLS to correspondence with CPS and in particular CPS letter dated 15 July 1998 setting out various restrictions conditions that there might be on disclosure if it were decided to give voluntary disclosure after a decision by DPP not to intervene.

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

21 December 1998

2.00 pm

Brief meeting with Miss Adlington after close o f Court proceedings at which she handed me a document headed “R 0 . David Dukenfield and David Murray Submissions as to issue of Summonses” which she said set out the basis upon which the prosecution say that the papers which they are seeking are material evidence.

FILE NOTE

— < % ?

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:

A ■/>

South Yorkshire Police - ACC

Hillsborough

MLS

21 December 1998

Hearing before the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Cadbury commencing 11.15 am, 21 December 1998.

Opening by M r Alan Jones OC for the Prosecution:

Sir, the Court has pencilled in for 19 April the Committal Proceedings. All parties received notice on Friday last that the DPP is not intervening. Therefore the proceedings should proceed. There are problems with the paperwork which are that:

(i) DPP has always said that if decision favourable to prosecution there would be voluntary disclosure o f their material; and

(ii) Hammond Suddards on behalf o f South Yorkshire Police by letter dated 14 December have said that their clients would follow the guidance o f CPS.

The prosecution have been in touch with CPS. Prosecution have been told by Mr Harrison that Murray will ask for Judicial Review. Miss Varty has been in touch with Mr Croston and it seems she may not want to make voluntary disclosure by SYP until after Judicial Review determined.

CPS is considering whether to disclose in any event. Prosecution are told they will make a decision before Thursday this week.

As DPP is considering voluntary disclosure you may think there is no sufficient indication of refusal. So I do not think that I can argue convincingly that there has been a refusal.

I am therefore asking for an adjournment in order to establish the DPP’s attitude to disclosure in writing. I ask for the earliest time after this week. The Prosecution will make representations to the Director. We will argue the proceedings in this Court should not be held up by Judicial Review as the Defence will need to ask for leave and for a stay.

We deplore the delay o f 5 months. No doubt everyone will want to proceed with despatch to ensure that there is no unfairness.

FILE NOTE

I asked the Defence to indicate now when they will move the Divisional Court. The prosecution will want to be present on their application.

Leave is unlikely to be granted as the Defendants can defend themselves in the proceedings themselves. I will resist any application to adjourn the date for Committal in this Court.

Only if leave were granted for Judicial Review and the Hearing Date for Judicial Review was fixed beyond April would it be right to delay the Committal proceedings.

As prosecutors we are entitled to see the material to decide which witnesses to call.

We ask for a firm date o f 19 April and to fix the first convenient date for the hearing o f the Witness Summons. If the DPP does disclose to us the application in respect o f South Yorkshire Police becomes less urgent as there are over 500 statements. If however the DPP does not disclose then we need to get on.

I would like to deal with the position of the Chief Constable o f South Yorkshire. We have been asking for access to the archive for 5 months. Hammond Suddards say that they will give consideration after the decision in relation to Judicial Review.

Miss Varty cannot tell us who can authorise the release o f the material in the archive. One of the problems posed by this case is how does it come about that South Yorkshire Police hold entire archive o f documents. We are told this by a parliamentary answer made last week. The documents have been required for a history o f purposes such as Taylor, Coroner, Complaints Authority etc.

The West Midlands force were the investigators. Our submission is that the ownership o f the documents is that o f the body on whose behalf they were taken by West Midlands Police.

It appears that South Yorkshire Police consider that they own the material as they were the first to call in the West Midlands Police. The West Midlands Police were acting as their agents. Our position is that whatever the reason may be, South Yorkshire Police possess them and the Summons is rightly made against them.

We don’t want them to say that we have issued the Summons against the wrong person and we asked them to make their position clear.

A

I would like to use the time today to see which of the documents in our Schedule satisfy Section 97 (3).

Michael Harrison OC Responded on behalf o f Murray:

Mr Harrison said: There are two applications which I can extract or distill, from what my friend has said which affect Murray and they are one, the application to adjourn and two, the application to make 19 April a firm date.

May I make it clear that the Judicial Review application will be lodged.

We have asked the Director for his reasons for not intervening and expect these by Thursday. The application will be lodged in the first two weeks o f January.

It seems to us that keeping 19 April gives us a lever with the High Court but if we get leave we think it will go beyond 19 April. If it looks like that then we will come back to you.

The Stipendiary Magistrate said:

It would assist me if you applied for a stay.

Paul Isaacs OC on behalf o f Duckenfield said :

I adopt what Mr Harrison has said and ask if Mr Duckenfield can be excused attendance on the next hearing.

Mr Harrison said:

Please excuse Murray as well.

Louise Vartv - Counsel for South Yorkshire Police said:

The stance o f the South Yorkshire Police is a neutral one.

We have significant misgivings about the appropriateness o f the Summons.

My intention was to ask for time. The Force took the view it was inappropriate to review voluminous documentation with costs implications if the DPP may intervene.

Now we have heard that there is to be a challenge to the decision o f the DPP.

We have attempted to incorporate this into our thinking. The exercise would be a huge exercise. We do not want to look at voluntary disclosure if there is to be a challenge by way o f Judicial Review. Therefore our first position is that the Summons should be postponed until after the Judicial Review proceedings.

FILE NOTE

In any event we want to consider voluntary disclosure but we do not want to spend money on it yet.

FILE NOTE

It appears that the Prosecution have real potential for obtaining documents from CPS. They may not need to persist with their Summons if they obtain documents from CPS. There is no means by which we can be compensated in costs. M r Jones has raised a new point for us this morning. We cannot give any undertakings about the documents as we have not had any opportunity to consider them. Once Judicial Review has been resolved then we will consider voluntary disclosure.

The Stipendiary Magistrate

If you are not prepared to consider voluntary disclosure there is no alternative to the Summons.

Miss Vartv

It is not established that the Prosecution need to make the application until they have a decision from CPS.


I may need guidance as to what CPS have and what South Yorkshire have. Can you deal with relevance?

Miss Vartv

Yes but not now. But I can deal with legal argument under Section 97 as to whether the process is appropriate. However there has been no dialogue with the prosecution.


I am minded to consider a short date. I am not sitting again until 4 January. I will not vacate 19 April today as that will be a lever with the Divisional Court.

Alan Jones

I ask for an early date in the first week o f January.

Paul Isaacs

Confirmed that Duckenfield will also apply for Judicial Review.


I will adjourn this case until 10.00 am on Thursday 7 January but I want to deal with points of principle while we are here as I am concerned with how much power I have.

FILE NOTE

Alan Jones

I ask you to look at Section 97A. The critical words are “likely to be material evidence”. I refer you to Schedule A. There are a number o f statements and these are material evidence as witness statements are admissible if accepted.


The 38 in Schedule A are the ones you have already served.

M r Jones

Yes we want to check the statements against the originals.


If the Defence don’t want them then they would have to be handed in.

M r Jones

Yes. I refer to Schedule B. These are documents compiled or collected by West Midlands Police. We do not have copies o f all o f them. We want to see the ones that we do not have copies of.


Are they supporters?

Mr Jones

Yes. We know all these documents are kept in a homes computer or in a hard copy. We want to look at them to see if they are material evidence.


So you have not yet decided to call them.

Mr Jones

No.


You can only have the Summons returnable in the proceedings themselves.

______

FILE NOTE

Mr Jones

I agree. The Police and the CPS have been asking for guidance. Different people can give guidance and I ask you to express a view yourself in these letters .


Obviously it will make for a more orderly Committal if voluntary disclosure takes place but I cannot order it.

Mr Jones

It cannot be expensive or inconvenient for them to give disclosure.


Do you have a view o f what they are likely to say.

M r Jones

Yes.


I think it would be sensible if South Yorkshire Police provided them. Otherwise it will cause delays.

M r Jones

Witnesses have a right to refresh their memory from statements. I refer to Schedule C. These are witnesses who gave evidence at the Inquest.


You will have a transcript o f that.

Mr Jones

Yes. Much of the questioning by the Coroner was about the drink people had had. There is important evidence in relation to what happened in 1988 as to the Police watching (aspects of entry to the ground).

They didn’t do this in 1989. This goes to the issue o f^ rjeeab ility . The South Yorkshire Police have been defending themselves for 9 years in civil proceedings. I asked South

------

FILE NOTE

Yorkshire Police to forget their conflict o f interest and to disclose the documents. The statements which they sent to the DPP were selective. The Coroner’s report is based on 12% o f the total statements. Many statements are not included in the bundle sent to the DPP. Of the 35 statements which we have served only a quarter went to the DPP. There is no point waiting to the end o f the Judicial Review. We should proceed as if the case was going on. I turned to the Schedule D which is Exhibits. The CPS have lists o f Exhibits. They say that they have returned them or a lot o f them to South Yorkshire Police. We have been through the master document list and isolated these as our strong evidence. One accepts some are more likely to be material than others e.g. item 91. Often we have no information as to what these are other than that they are in the Schedule. This was prepared by West Midlands and is now in the possession o f South Yorkshire Police. We have asked for an explanation and none has been given. These were documents prepared for the Public Enquiry so why they are in the possession o f the body in whose possession they are is dubious. I asked my friend to indicate which documents in these lists are within Section 97 and which are not.

%


Said: I think there must be many documents in Schedule D which are material and hope that this is being taken on board.

Mr Jones

I turn to Schedule D - this deals with video material. For example document 180 the South Yorkshire Police are in possession o f documents from the Metropolitan Police about visits to Wembley. I turn to the relevance of transcripts about breaking down of the gates, the tapes show communications between various officers o f South Yorkshire Police. I can see no reason why they won’t disclose them unless they are appalled by the evidence which they disclose. I refer to Edmondson - this statement disclosed to us this year refers to a transcript o f a tape in which it is said the fans had broken down the gates.


Said: You could Summons him.

Mr Jones

I have asked Hammond Suddards for addresses but they have refused to give them.


So you would have to ask for Witness Summonses to get the addresses. The problems are not insurmountable but without co-operation they would be difficult.

Mr Jones

FILE NOTE

The South Yorkshire Police are paying the Defendants’ costs so money is clearly not an object for them.

Miss Louise Vartv for the Respondent

Said: Many of the comments which my friend has made are unfair as we have not had time to consider voluntary disclosure.


Said: Yes in relation to the documents but perhaps not in relation to the witnesses.

Miss Vartv

Said: My friend has used emotive language and argued that it is not too much trouble to give disclosure so why not give it. However it is plain from Sections 97 and 97A that there is no power o f disclosure. The Court can order a person to produce documents or give a deposition. However the parties must isolate the issue to which the document or statement relates. The Applicant must show how the document is relevant and admissible. It is not enough that it would be useful. It is not a discovery procedure.


What about refreshing memory.

Miss Vartv

That does not make a document an admissible piece o f evidence. It is not appropriate for Mr Jones to say that we have been unreasonable. He is not in a position to go through these documents in detail and show how each of them is relevant and admissible.


You are right. I do not want to do that today.

Miss Vartv

The South Yorkshire Police are not privy to the prosecution and the issues in it. Until we know what each document goes to we do not know whether it is relevant. This is a discovery application. We appreciate that feelings are high but we are anxious as there are all sorts of ramifications for police forces if an application can be made in cases like this on a generic basis. The private prosecution is on its own and the prosecutor cannot get these documents without co-operation. We are doing our best to comply with the legal requirements to which we are subject. We will look at this carefully but there is not enough time by 7 January. We

%

FILE NOTE

are very dependent upon the Prosecution making out a case as to why each document is relevant and admissible. No doubt the Prosecutor will tell us to what extent we can be relieved if they get substantial discovery from the Crown Prosecution Service.

M r Michael Harrison OC for Murray said:

The Court should observe the legal requirements. A Prosecution witness statement is not material evidence for the Prosecutor. It is only material evidence for the Defence if the witness gives evidence inconsistent with his written statement.

M r Paul Isaacs OC for Duckenfield said: /

If there is to be voluntary disclosure then we want the Praoeoution to undertake to disclose to the Defendants whatever they undertake to the prosecution.

The Stipendiary Magistrate said:

They will have to disclose to you as well in that event. I cannot make a decision today. None of what I have said in the course o f these proceedings is in any way binding.

M r Alan Jones OC said:

I understand that we will all have access at York but after Committal there will have to be full disclosure. The issues are what they have always been. It is evident now that they are an act o f negligence and perversion o f the course o f justice.

The Stipendiary Magistrate suggested that the bundle supplied to him with thumbnail sketch should be supplied to South Yorkshire Police and ordered that neither Defendant should be required to attend the proceedings on 7 January. The Court adjourned.

Noteshillsborough.dec23

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

21 December 1998

File note o f pre-hearing meeting in Courtroom 12 between Alan Jones QC and Ann Adlington for HFSG, Michael Harrison QC, Paul Isaacs QC for the Defendants together with their respective solicitors, Louise Varty and MLS for ACC SYP.

The meeting had already commenced before Louise Varty and MLS entered the room as we had been on the phone in another room having the conversation with George Croston, detailed in a separate note.

Louise Varty (LV) said that Croston was o f the view that as there was to be Judicial Review there should not be voluntary disclosure.

Alan Jones (AJ) asked whether there would be Judicial Review.

Michael Harrison (MH) said yes by mid January.

LV said if there had been no Judicial Review we would have wtjaM' a month but now as there is no cover for the costs we would propose that our consideration o f the question of whether to give voluntary disclosure should be postponed until after resolution o f the Judicial Review application.

AJ asked if we (Hammond Suddards) were acting for West Midlands Police.

MLS said “we are instructed to advise South Yorkshire Police in relation to your Summons”.

AJ asked whether we accepted that we had control over all the documents referred to in the Summons and whether the Summons was properly directed to the ACC.

MLS said “we are not prepared to say anything*about the Summons at this stage as to whether they are our papers or not. It is not for us to advise you about your Summons we are advising the South Yorkshire Police”.

AJ asked “does the policy o f not supplying copy statements o f witnesses still remain in force”.

AJ said “will you agree to supply us with the originals o f statements o f which we have copies”.

MLS said “we have no instructions to agree anything. The matter will be considered”.

M H said “it is inappropriate to have a fixed date for the Committal”.

AJ said he disagreed and was not prepared to adjourn the timetable and accused MH o f using delay as a weapon not a grievance. He said there was no reason why the Judicial Review could not be expedited and asked why the Defence could not make the application earlier than mid January.

M H said - “we might - its an outer time limit”.

AJ said that he could not see any reason to postpone the 19 April hearing.

MH said “but you can’t even meet that date yourself’.

AJ said “I don’t think you will get leave for Judicial Review. I do not think we should vacate the date o f 19 April because if it is taken out we may not be able to get back on before the Autumn. We may have to call witnesses without statements. The Committal will take about 2 weeks”.

FILE NOTE

M H said “when will you fit in to your timetable an application by the Defence to stay the proceedings as an abuse o f process?”

AJ said “the time for such an application is at Committal. You can call witnesses at Committal” . He said abuse should only be determined in the Committal proceedings themselves.

Noteshillsborough.dec23

FILE NOTE

Client Name:

Matter:

Fee Earner:

Date:

Time Engaged:


Hillsborough

MLS

21 December 1998

7.00 am - 9.15 am

Attending in Peter M etcalfs room and reviewed his files in relation to Hillsborough and in particular in relation to the application for a witness summons. Also reviewed cases in his files o f previous law reports. Reviewed section in Wilkinson in relation to evidence and documentary evidence and obtained full copy through Simon Hills o f the Derby Justices decision. Travel to Court.

9.30 am

Met Louise Varty o f Counsel. Gave her the recent correspondence which PCM had had with HFSG. Discussed the case and agreed that in the first place we would ask for an adjournment in order to consider voluntary disclosure and if that was not granted then we would oppose the application for the Summons. Miss Varty handed to me an outline submission which she proposed to make on behalf o f the Assistant Chief Constable.

10.00 am

Met with Michael Harrison QC and Paul Isaacs QC who are appearing on behalf o f the Defendants and was informed by them that they intend to apply for Judicial Review o f the decision by DPP not to intervene in the proceedings.

Met with Alan Jones QC and other Counsel and solicitors and was asked by Alan Jones QC totelephone Mr Croston at CPS on solicitors for HFSG.

to see what he had to say as he had spoken to

At approximately 10.15 am I telephoned Croston with mobile phone. He said that CPS had sent out letters with the decision not to intervene in the proceedings and were currently waiting for a decision from London on the issue o f disclosure. He said that CPS had not yet made a decision on disclosure but he understood that the Chief Constable would give voluntary disclosure subject to privilege and immunity. I said that I did not think that he was advising the Chief Constable and that I considered it to be inappropriate to give any disclosure until the Judicial Review proceedings, which I had been told by solicitors for the Defendants were to take place, had been resolved. If there were to be Judicial Review proceedings then he would expect deferment o f voluntary disclosure until after Judicial Review but he was waiting for a letter from London.

'98 17:44 ©01904 456577 A;PS 4th floor

01904 456577@001

I *mCPS

y •• •.

Facsimile

Attention of: K i t e £

Address: M M h O n D

GattreC Cate***c0Wc< W»**r«

Pitrattidfr« * H7f

Oi/«c Ciwr a tK ^ 566'n S taiaaard! 0I9OJ-J10UTT)

rxerwwl«: OlVii-iSSSTT

0.X Mo. HJZCS forko

rax No:

Frocn: C ^ . P .

CPS Divisioa:

Dace: Time: 1 7 ^ - b

This tax transmission, consists of this pags plus 12L others.

Please aclogs*k5dge cecsipc:

If transmission is not property received please call 01904—

R z ( f i L L S S o S x ^ t y

/^UscAa^<Xft sclodoJt, sAcwXf$ ft* w US-aoJ.c<r\ C/3 f £ £ s e s $ u Z t ^ . c&toid&ftef duf\A< c*iJ m i- U x H u v ( 9 9 c ) c ^ d 1 9 * 7 7 .

I uXuUrt b t-g fo Jfa -L (f^ jc n cjmM <s>cUcaJe uJucA c£

He pJUct Qb&txJtel uftHi tb Ptf /kgalp i u ( & ) 2 o & t i & e f c n f l a t £ > ^ c U ^ c J L o ^ e o l , n M + c U c f

i-iaJ& eJ (pot s\^bj£oJ & & 0 <n flof~ ffe fu&ULc K j^ o u i^ l^ o j Voh p h c u d la tfo tfo iM tc F CeHht&L*)

t i $ S C fL tjT A C j) O n c l ( f

if&AO CCs\ ht dU^ChteoL t?*7 tt& CPi.

I a n c u M tlU ^ t P d e c J 'fa cl* t> u M lU / cr /o t t j cfis sUajJdL qurt \M m !zV u di^okauSr p*cT to OvyjW UX Q siU jd b & o w c J u \ j f h & ^ ■

C n ~ * S * r * c t -. u> tfw m ro > « re p f'i> u m

HILLSBOROUGH CASE

SCHEDULE OF MATERIAL KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY CPS PRIOR TO 30th AUGUST 1990

NUMBER

1

DESCRIPTION OF ITEM COMMENTS

WEST MIDLANDS POLICE REPORT PREPARED FOR TAYLOR ENQUIRY

• MASTER INDEX OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

PART I INTRODUCTION Report - Statements -

PART I INTRODUCTION CONTINUEDStatementsDocuments

PART II Report - Statement - Documents -

PART III Report - Documents - Statements -

Showing pagination and allotted part numbers plus amendments. See Appendix 1.

Pages 1 to 22 Pages 1 to 348

Pages 349 - 751 1 - 43

Pages 23 - 68 Pages 752 - 1128 44 - 108

Pages 69 - 83 109 - 177 Pages 1129 - 1144

PART IVReportStatementsDocumentsPART VReportStatementsDocument

PART VI Report Statement Documents

PART VII Report Appendices -

Pages 84 - 118 Pages 1145 - 2456 178 - 191

Pages 119 - 157 Pages 2457 - 3480 192 - 207

Pages 152 - 165 Pages 3481 - 3706 Pages 208 - 220A

Pages 166-318Pages 319 - 335 (sequence ofevents)Pages 336 - 344 (correspondence re Taylor Enquiry)Transcripts of Interviews of Graham Mackrell Supl. Roger Marshall Supt. Bernard Murray Asst. Ch. Const. Waller Jackson Supt. Roger Greenwood Ch. Supt. David Duckenfield

ADDITIONAL LOOSE DOCUMENTS FOR REPORT AT 1 ABOVE

Unumbered Document and Video Criminal Interview with Peler Edward Smith Parts 1 and 2

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS FOR REPORT AT 1 ABOVE

Statement of Brian Wallace dated 28/4/89 Statement of Gordon Sykes dated 18/7/90

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS AT LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR’S ENQUIRY WITH CORRESPONDING STATEMENTS

TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS AT LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR’S ENQUIRY WITH CORRESPONDING STATEMENTS

Pages 2677 A - H Pages 2963 A - C

Eleven folders covering dales 15/5/89 to 28/6/89

3 Bundles containing evidence of: D. Bownes G. Mackrell W. Eastwood ACC Jackson Ch. Supt. Nesbit Ch. Supt. Duckenficld Supt. Chapman Ch. Supt. Mole Supt. Marshall Supt. Greenwood Supt. Murray

WEST MIDLANDS POLICE INTERIM REPORT NUMBER 2 Report prepared for CPS/PCA,being revised copy of the one prepared for Lord Justice Taylor, dated 12/10/89. Table of contents attached at Appendix 2.

at->

toOhM

1-I*- S) in<Din

8

10

ORIGINALS PETITIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH FAMILY SUPPORT GROUP AND OTHERS

INTERIM REPORT OF LORD JUSTICE TAYLOR’S ENQUIRY

COUNSEL’S JOINT OPINION RE HILLSBOROUGH STADIUM DISASTER DATED 6/8/90

CORRESPONDENCE FILES

Three bundles

Between:CPS/Police/LSLO/Other interested parties/relatives of victims.

in

11

12

13

FIRST TUESDAY VIDEO TAPE

2 VIDEO TAPES ENTITLED MRE2/AE and MRE2/AF

QUANTITY OF LOOSE PAPER PERTAINING TO FORENSIC EVIDENCE ON CRASH BARRIERS

f ■0

HILLSBOROUGH REVIEW

LIST OF MATERIAL CONSIDERED AT 1997 CPS REVIEW

MATERIAL

HFSG letter

T. Hicks draft statement

Opinion of A tun Jones QC

Annexes A to G of Opinion

Lord Justice Taylor’s Interim Report

Joint Opinion of Gareth Williams QC and Peter Birts QC, concerning allegations of criminal misconduct by police

Background Note sent to Attorney General

DATE OF ITEM ORIGINALS PRODUCED OR HELD BY

4/3/97 ' Trevor Hicks

T. Hicks

T. Hicks

T. Hicks

1/8/89 CPS

6/8/90 CPS

Undated CPS

COMMENTS

Received 4/3/97

Obtained by HFSG

See Appendix 1

Circa 1990

22/12

’98

17:46

©01904

456577

4;PS 4th

floor

01904

456577

10

11

12

13

Statements of P.C Ryan

Statements of P.C. Bichard

Notebook of P.C. Bichard

Master Exhibit Index for Lord Justice Taylor's Enquiry

Computer Exhibit List for Lord Justice Taylor’s Eqnuiry re Exhibits TB/I AND 2

Master Video Schedule for Lord Justice Taylor’s Enquiry

Compilation Tape schedule for Lord Justice Taylor’s Enquiry

Compilation Video Tape (Taylor Eqnuiry Document 142 and Inquest Exhibit C238)

5/5/899/1/90

5/5/899/1/902/5/89

*f i

South Yorkshire Police






South Yorkshire Police VHS Master Copy seen

*c*

Exhibit TB/1 and TB/2 Video Tape Schedules for Lord Justice Taylor's Enquiry

Exhibits TB/1 and TB/2 Video Tapes

Inquest Exhibit List

Inquest Exhibit C539 Video Tape

Inquest Transcripts of evidence of P.C. Bichard P.C. Ryan, P.S. Goddard P.S. Killoch

Copy correspondence re viewing of Unused Material at Nechells Green Police Station prior to Inquest Hearings

Original Statement of Dr. Edward Walker

Police Action message referring to warning of Dr. Walker for Court

20th July 1989

2/4/90


South Yorkshire Police VMS Master Copy seen

South Yorkshire Pplice

South Yorkshire Police VHS Master Copy on show at Inquest



South Yorkshire Police Copy with CPS


Statements of James Wardrope, Consultant

Transcript of Inquest Evidence of James Wardrope

Body File of Philip Hammond No. 93

Transcript of Inquest Evidence of Professor Alan Usher Pathologist

Transcript of Inquest Evidence of Dr. David Slater

Transcript of Inquest Evidence of Dr. Ernest Gumpert

Transcript of BBC Radio 5 Broadcast

Inquest Video Tape showing production of Exhibit C539 in evidence

Granada Drama re Hillsborough

Home Office PPD: questions and police replies

Hillsborough Case Chronology

6/6/89

18/4/90

13/4/97

20/12/96







Tellex Monitors Ltd.


CPS


CPS

* ♦_____=____ *L_____

34 Correspondence File CPS Between CPS and UPSG/MomeOffice/LSLO/Police/Relativcs of Victims

NOTE: Items 21 - 28 form a special evidence bundle prepared by South Yorkshire Police for the 1997 review - See Appendix 1

A f f g v i K * I

th e HILLSBOROUGH DISASTER15 April 19S9

IHDEX

Document

1. Annex A

Skeleton Argument presented in Divisional Court hearing 1 November 1993

2. &ftn.g*_5

Judgment-of Divisional Court 5 November 1993

3. Annex C

Affidavit of Roger Houldsvorth and supporting documents

4. m m x PI

Transcript of evidence of Police Constable MICSAEL VINCENT RYAN to the Taylor Inquiry

Transcript of evidence of Police Sergeant MICHAEL GODDARD to Taylor Inquiry

Transcript of evidence of Police Sergeant tdtCHAEL GODDARD to the Inquest

i

ii>

iii.

5. «ntex p2

i.

ii.

T r a n s c r i p t of evidence of Police Constable TREVOR BICHARD to Taylor Inquiry

Transcript, of evidence of Police Constable TREVOR BICHARD to the Inquest

iii. Transcript of evidence of Police Constable HAROLD GDEST to Taylor Inquiry

iv. Transcript of evidence of Chief Inspector McROBBIE to Taylor Inquiry

TtOZZS9S* *0610

•IOOTJ H I* S « f'i ; ; c o c * f,n tt

Page Ho^

a - 23

24 - 68

69 - 92

93 - 115

116 - 164

165 - 264

265 - 310

311 - 369

370 - 418

419 - 440

Stat^ent of Chief Inspector McROBBIE 441v

6 . O T H k *

Transcript of Day 77 of Inquest Part of Coroner's summing up

7. AHKEX F

Evidence of Dr ED WALKER

8. AMHEX Q

i. Transcript of evidence to Inquest re Philip Hammond 2 May 1989

±i. Article British Medical Journal 30 November 1991

S v t p f i b W E S • P * * . 2 ° v t 3

» P i (WITS P l|, PAfcr 1 «u*2

C 5 3 9

jo o i j gat sd:t LLSSSt *0610.0.

Pr^rc^JU IX

Statement of Dr Edward C Walker dated 20 July 1989

2 Action Number A8559 referring to warning of Dr Walker dated

2 April 1990

3 Statements of James Wardrope, Consultant in charge of Accident and Emergency, Northern General Hospital

4 Transcript of evidence of James Wardrope on Wednesday 18

April 1990

Body file of Philip Hammond, Number 93

6 Transcript of evidence of Professor AJ.an Usher,

Pathologist, on Wednesday 18 April 1990

7 Transcript of evidence of Dr David Slater on Friday 4 May

1990

8 Transcript of evidence of Dr Ernest Gumpert on Friday 4 May

1990

9

zzqq<;t7 *0610jo o t j m t sd:? L L $ 9 $ t fOBTOffl «fi 7.T/7.Z

,23/12 '88 11:02 ©01904 4S6577

Tel:Fax:

To: M. Shepherd Esq From: George Croston

Fax: Pages: 2

Phone: Date; . 12/23/98 •

Re: Adiington v DucKenfield & Murray Tone:

□ U rgent □ For Review □ P lease Com m ent □ P lease Reply □ P le ase R ecycle

• Com m ents:

Schedule previously sent.

cps 4th floor @001

Crown Prosecution Service Central Casework United House YORK Y 019P Q

TOO®I00Z *82 ETT0

SflNVfHTflS (TWOTffVIT Tfin/ frfi? f T T f t w J f 7 1 t t nrtu on •

23/12 '98 11:03 ©01904 456577 CPS 4th floor @002

Miss D. H. SbarpHng Chief Crown Prosecutor

B U M

CPSCPS Central Casework United House Piccadilly York YQ1 1PQ .

HAMMOND SUDDARDS SolicitorsFAO M Shepherd Esq DX: 26441 LEEDS

L

"I

J

SwUeJitoeHk 01304450070 nxso: 65204 York 6

Aaimilc: 0J9fl4r56577

Direct Line

Our fttfercncc YBF/3341/89

w M ^ec POM.SB.CIU.57-9

23 December 199S

Dear Sirs

RE: ADLINGTON v DUCKENFfEI.D and MURRAY

Further to my fax o f yesterday, attached are the two schedules of material reviewed by the CPS in 1990 and 1997 and still in our possession.

We have been asked by the HFSG to commence disclosure immediately and without waiting for any judicial review hearing to be set following the intimated application by both defcnce solicitors. This requestis being considered and a response will be given as soon as possible.

Tn order to assist in the provision o f voluntary disclosure of relevant and material documents in the possession o f the CPS, I would be grateful if you could indicate which o f the police generated items may be disclosed by us. I presume that as South Yorkshire Police have custody o f the Hillsborough archive that the Chief Constable can give permission for disclosure or the waiver of PII re West Midlands police material.

Perhaps you could arrange for a copy of ihe schedule to be annotated as to:-1. Items subject to PJ1 which is not waived.2. Item subject to PII which can now be waived.3. Item subject to PH which is known to be in ihe public domain (and therefore

previously waived).4. Items not subject to PII which known to be in the public domain (and therefore

previously waived).5. Item not subjcct to PII and not in the public domain which can be disclosed6. Any other claim for items.

I am mindful o f the rules concerning the disclosure o f witnesses’ addresses and their statements without their consent. This is a point we may need to consider for those statements not in the public domain.

roomCrown prosecution Service • o f

O/TM V/T/m O «TkTAT«irVTT T A A » C.AW rtT T A T O T i

2A/12 '98 Uii3 ©01904 486377 CPs 4th floor <21003

I would begraleftil if you could indicate today when you might be able to provide a substantive reply so that I can inform the parties to the private prosecution of any delays in the making of the CPS decision re voluntary disclosure.

Yours sincerely

George R. Croston Prosecution Team Leader

T00Z P83 ETT0onnPBi n m T V f f f f n n <TkTAt»(rrm

2*3. DEC. 1998 13:12 1 NO. 3668 P. 1/6

W A L K E RM O R R I S

Solicitors

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500.Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Email mfo^igalkgrmnfrig^A.^k

Web: http://ww.walkermorris.co.uk

F A C S I M I L E T R A N S M I S S I O N

From Walker Morris RBM

Date 23 December 1998

Page 1 of 4

M atter Number MUR.313-1

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED:-

Letter

Private and Confidential This facsimile may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It must not be used by, or its contents copied or disclosed to persons other than the addressee. If you have received this in error please notify us immediately by telephone at the number listed above and return it to us by mail. We will reimburse postage.

To Michael Shepherd

A t Hammond Suddards

Telephone

A lu t r fd x ftm m ' n m a u c fa i u wpcrwi n A t th n e ReguUta! by The Lem Soday M A t am ina i f

w A L K E RM O R R I S

S o l i c i t o r s

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500,Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Email info^wilkennorrkco.uk

Web: http://www.walkermorris.co.uk

FAO Michael Shepherd Our ref Rbm/bqw/MURRaHammond Suddards YDX 14347 Your refMANCHESTERBY FAX 23 December 1998

Dear Sir

RE : HILLSBOROUGH

We understand that you will be advising the Chief Constable on the question of disclosure pursuant to the proposed witness summons and the request for disclosure therein. We can tell you that on behalf of our Client the writer is meeting Mr Michael Harrison QC on Thursday morning for the purposes of beginning the preparation of an application for Judicial Review.

We noted from our telephone conversation of 22 December that you made reference to a conversation between yourself and Mr Croston of the Crown Prosecution Service from Court on 21 December. Like us, you woe told that the Crown Prosecution Service had already a draft of a letter setting out the basis and reasons for their decision and it was anticipated that it would be provided no later than 24 December. We enclose herewith a copy of the letter received on die afternoon of 22 December. We have responded to them by fax to say that we find this position to be totally unacceptable and against the assurance that we were given (which assurance was alsn given to you).

You will remember that during the course of the dialogue before the actual hearing itself and during the course of die hearing, we stated that it was our intention to apply for Judicial Review. We indicated that we expected to make (hat ajy li^ tion the week of 11 January. At this Mr Alun Jones QC for the Prosecution asked why it was not possible for the application to be lodged during the week of 4 January if the matter were given due expedition. We believe that even had the response of the Crown Prosecution Service been provided on 24 December, it would have been impossible to have been able to categorically assure die Court that we could lodge an application within the week of 4 January. The response of the Crown Prosecution Service now makes that absolutely impossible and we shall work with all speed to try to ensure that the application is issued in the week of 11 January.

You will further recall that the Stipendiary Magistrate invited us to include within the application, a further application that the Magistrates’ Court proceedings be stayed pending the determination of the application for Judicial Review.

We confirm that our application will include a request for a stay.

Ke&Uci Ib tL tw &efag> tm Ac comima e f mmmem b m m

Ill our view, it would be inappropriate for any disclosure of any documents to be given, pending detennination of the application to stay the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court pending the detennination of the Judicial Review application.

We enclose herewith a copy of the letter that we have sent to the Clerk to the Justices so that he may bring this to the attention of the Learned Stipendiary Magistrate.

Yours faithfully

PAETNEEEnc

21 DEC; 1958 13:13

Nl»D.H.Sh»i»iiag Cfcef Cw»n ftoeeo**

01904 456b/’/

% i-r* jS #». , -- _

S r S IPO

WALKER MORMS Solicitors Kings Court 12 Kings Street LEEDS LSI 2HL

:' i

J

Dina lM i

(M0K4> TOF/G03341/89

k b ^ w m o i e a y

22 December 1998

•MRi t .

Dear Sirs,

RE* aDLINGTON — v - M DUCKENFIELD a n d MURRAY1 > . . . ,LEEDS MAGISTRATES COURT 21 DECEMBER 1998 ■ ■ i;r v

Thank you for you leiler of 18 December 1998. v

H ie Crown Prosecution Service is considering your requests, but a s u b s m it iv e i^ n « cannot be made before January 1999.

Youis faithfully -

George R. Croston Prosecution Team Leader f s ;

Cram fm ta d m SmAx * W»tmg m A* mbe/tHS tf ji«*«8ir

>*«. p f i i t t f mi| j . Mr. 11*11

W A L K E R M p R R I S

S o l i c i t o r s

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500. Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Em*a iafotf9walkermorrkco.uk

Web: http://w w .w »lk ermorris.co.uk

N Cadbury Esq Stipendiary Magistrate Leeds Magistrates’ Court DX 703016 LEEDS 6

Our ref RBM/BQW/MURRA Y

Your ref

BY FAX 23 December 1998

Dear Sir

RE : ADUNGTON -V- MURRAY AND DUCKENFIELD

You are aware of our instructions on behalf of Mir Bernard Murray, one of the two Defendants in this matter before the Court on 21 December. The proceedings stand adjourned to 7 January.

Information had been given to us and the Solicitors for the Assistant Chief Constable of South Yorkshire by the Crown Prosecution Service in the person of Mr George Croston. He said that the Crown Prosecution Service already had a draft of the basis and reasons upon which they had made their decision not to intervene and that he expected to be able to provide that reply no later than close of business on 24 December.

Consequent upon that information we had made plans to meet with Leading Counsel on24 December and again on 6 January. We then expected to be in a position to advise the Court of either the lodgement of the application for Judicial Review nr a fairly precise date when such lodgement would be made which was anticipated no liter than a day within the week commencing the 11 January. This would, of course, have significant bearing on any decision that the Court was asked to take at the h irin g on 7 January. We say this because die Learned Stipendiary Magistrate invited any application for Judicial Review to also include an application to stay the Magistrates’ Court proceedings pending the detennination of the Judicial Review.

For our part we confirm that it is intended to include such application for a stay within the application for the Judicial Review. ,

The copy letter attached hereto from the Crown Prosecution Service is not only, ientirely contrary to the advices given in the telephone conversation but it makes it certain that even working with utmost expedition, no application for Judicial Review can be lodged with the Court until some date in the week commencing 11 January.

Our submission is that no Order should be made for the disclosure of any documents until such time as the Court has made an adjudication to stay the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court pending the determination of the Judicial Review application.

A lu t c f thepm nm ' ium a it tpen v WftCBM a the tdJvnu Rtgmlmmi ly The Lmv Society im Ae eomdna i f mvegtmau hft'ilfli

We wonder iwhefter the Court in knowledge of these events siace the last hearing ie d s ' *• that the date for the parties legal representatives to come back before f ie .C to if t '^ iii ; be varied to a date at the end of the week which commences on 11 January JJ99.

This letter is being written immediately before the Christmas break and the writer will be away from the office during the period between Christmas and New Year and will next be in the office late in the afternoon on 4 January.

Yours sincerely

R B Manning PARTNER

•fe- •

23. DEC. 1998 13:51 i NO. 3681


S o l i c i t o r s

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500. Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Email info0walkermorris.eo.uk

Web: http://irswwalkermorris.co.uk


From Walker Morris RBM

D ate 23 December 1998

Page 1 of £> .

M atter Number MUR.313-1


Letter

Private and Confidential This facsimile may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It must not be used by, or its contents copied or disclosed to persons other than the addressee. If you have received this facsimile m error please notify us immediately by telephone at the number listed above and return it to us by mail. We will reimburse postage.

To Michael Shepherd

At Hammond Suddards

Telephone

A lia c f& tftm m ' n jm a iio p m » iAipKOM at (if Rc^U teJ by Tie Ltm Soaay in Jx axu/»a hom es.

23. DEC. 1998 13:51 i NO. 3681 P. 2/6


S o l i c i t o r s

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500.Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Email info^dkermonisxo.uk

Web; hltpy/'trarar.valfcermorrij.co.uk

FAO M ichael Shepherd Our ref RBM/BQW/MURRAHammond Suddards YDX 14347 Your refMANCHESTERBY FAX 23 December 1998

Dear Sir

RE : HILLSBOROUGH

I attach a copy o f the letter that I have received from HFSG addressed to this firm. I also enclose a copy o f my reply. It seems to me that whereas I was considering whether I should seek to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service not to mnh» disclosure, the first sentence of the third paragraph of the letter makes it clear that the necessity now arises and I shall write to them accordingly.

As to the letter to the Police Authority I think that this is absolutely disgraceful. Of course, I have no reason to believe that the Police Authority have done anything other than act in accordance with proper procedures. I have never come across an instance where the Prosecutor has tried to argue that the Defendant should not be funded. The feet that negligence may have been admitted by the Chief Constable in no way negates the belief that “the Officers acted in good faith”. At no time did they act maliciously. They have, in hindsight, not done things that they may have wished they had done or vice versa, but that is hardly “acting in bad faith”. No doubt you will advise as to a suitable response. Frankly I think the Prosecutor had no locus standi in this regard which is no doubt the reason why in the last paragraph they talk about “supported by some South Yorkshire tax payers”

Yours sincerely

p a r t n e r

A t i l l c f* tp * r a u » ‘ i i t p n u U q K a lc n A r U tr tu . by 7 b l w S eda? in lb c m k 'fm m tm v u h m a t.

23. DEC. 1998 13:52

/ ■ *

s o p it fr

0 1 5 1 2 36 1936

Hillsborough Family Support Group

m i s s i p.

Walker Morris Solicitors King's Court 12 King Street Leeds LSI 2H1

December 1998

Ref: RBM/BQW/MURRAY

Pear Mr Manning,

I enclose as a matter o f courtesy for your information, copy o f a letter I have today sent to the South Yorkshire Police Authority. It affects your position.

Yesterday, counsel instructed by you told the magistrate that you had decided to apply for judicial review o f the decision o f the Crown Prosecution Service not to takeover theprosecutionof your client and Mr Duckenfield. It was apparent that you, and Mr Duckenfield's lawyers, had taken dris decision even though you had not received what Mr Harrison described as “reason?* in the

^ ou n sel and solicitor meeting, and ‘‘policy’* before the magistrate.

The effect o f announcing this concluded decision was to cause a deferment o f any question of vnhmftwy diactoflyn* nf Ann wiMtim hy the Crown Prosecution Service and South Yorkshire Police. Undo-Order 53 RiJe 4 ofthe Rules oftheSupremeCourt.it is necessary that any application for judicial review should be filed promptly and in any event within three months”. The decision you have made to apply for judicial review causes delay in the matter o f disclosure. Since all die factors that have hnpdi^i you to announoe a concluded decision have been known to you for several months, there can, I suggest, be no reason why you should not be able to lodge your application fo r leave and supporting evidence by Friday 8* January 1999, however long a Christmas holiday you take. You will have all evidence you need, and the grounds for your application are obviously capable o f being expressed now.

We have suggested in court that you are using delay as a weapon In the case, rather than as a genuine grievance- If you do not todge your application for judicial review fay g*January 1999, we give you notice that we shall otyect, in the absencc o f a compofliag explanation, to the grant o f leave and/or substantive relief on the ground that you did not apply “protnptiy*.

Phone 01512361919. Fax 0151236193&E Mid 1st Floor Central Bonding* 41 North John Street Lrmpool L2 O S

23. DEC. 1998 13:52 k NO. 3681 P. 4/6

0151236 1936

We also confirm that we w ishtobe heard in opposition to thr grant o f leave even though the application be strictly expcrtr, and that, if you ask for the question o f leave to be detennined on *he papery you brog this lecw to the attention o f the aiqgle judge. We aak you to provide nt with a full copy o f your application when you lodge it with the Crown Office.

Yours Sincerely,

Ann Arlington

HFSG 1st Floor Central Buildings 41 North John Street LIVERPOOL L 2 R R 23 December 1998

Your ref

Our ref RBM/BQW/MURRay

Dear Sirs

ADLINGTON -V- DUCKENFIELD AND MURRAY

We acknowledge your letter of 22 December together with enclosure. We believe and are advised that the decision o f the Director of Public Prosecutions not to t«1n> over the Prosecution is one which ought to be the subject o f an application for Judicial Review. Although on their behalf ihe Crown Prosecution Service have set up various policies and bases for the decision they have not definitively said anything more flian the decision o f which we are all aware. The Crown Prosecution Service acknowledge that they have to give reasons. They had, we were all told, a letter in dra|t form setting out the reasons and policies which led to the decision. We were told that this letter would be provided to us not later than close o f business on 24 December.

You have no need to tell us what fee rules say about the time for an application for Judicial Review of the criteria. We are not prepared to be dictated to by you as to the position that you will take if an application has not been lodged by 8 January 1999. Your heard Mr Harrison say that on the assumption that Ac letter from the Crown Prosecution Service were received on 24 December, he would anticipate that the application for Judicial Review would be able to lodged in the week commencing 11 January. We now know from the Crown Prosecution Service that “a substantive response cannot be made before January 1999".

Since the application is “strictly ex-parte” that is the way in which we would expect it to be dealt with.

We utterly reject your yet again stated assertion that we are seeking to delay as a weapon in the case. This was rejected by Mr Manning at an earlier hearing. It was very forcibly and utterly rejected by Mr Michael Harrison QC when this was suggested by Mr Alun Jones QC.

H:\WP\CRIM-MaT\RBM\REVIBW\MURRAY51.LET\23 December 1998

,HF5 0 23 D e c « ^ f i 9 I

Page 2

T ie invitation of the Learned Stipendiary Magistrate was for us to include within the application o f Judicial Review, an application to stay the proceedings in the M agistrates’ Court pending determination of the Judicial Review application. We intend to include an application to stay within the application. It is an inevitable consequence that the matter of disclosure whether voluntary or not is bound to be affected by the application to stay the proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court pending the determination of the Judicial Review application. In the circumstances, we would suggest that in the interest of saving costs, the hearing of 7 January be vacated with liberty to restore it immediately on the determination of the application for Judicial Review,

Yours faithfully

R B ManningPAMTOER

H:\WP\CRM-MAmBMWEVIEWttviURRAYSl.LEra3 Deowrtw 1998

Trinity Court


Manchester M60 8HS

Telephone (0161) 830 5000


Fax (0161) 830 5001

[email protected] Morris Solicitors DX 12051 Leeds 24

BY FAX: AND BY DX

Our Ref:

MLS.JH

Dear Sirs

H illsborough

We acknowledge receipt o f both o f your letters o f 23 December, one timed at 13.12 and the other timed at 13.51. We have left a message at your office to deal with the confusion which may have arisen as you seem to think that we act for the South Yorkshire Police Authority in this matter. We do not. We have therefore not seen the letter which you refer to as having been written by HFSG to the South Yorkshire Police Authority and no copy o f it was enclosed with the facsimile o f your letter. I f you want us to see it then no doubt you will forward it.

The letter from Ann Adlington to you dated 22 December is not one really for us to comment on save that she makes no comment in relation to the hearing fixed for 7 January which it seems to us ought to be further adjourned as irrespective o f any decision which may be made by CPS or the ACC in relation to whether the question o f voluntary disclosure should be postponed until after resolution o f the Judicial Review proceedings there is insufficient time between now and 7 January for CPS and the ACC to consider voluntary disclosure. We say this because CPS have still not obtained guidance from London on the issue o f voluntary disclosure and we understand that that guidance will at the earliest be available only by Christmas Eve. By that time both Mr Croston and the ACC will have departed for their Christmas holidays, not returning until 4 January.

Yours faithfully

HAM M OND SUDDARDSlmanning.dec23

O Slices also at:

2 Park Lane LeedsLS31ESTelephone (0113) 284 7000 Fax (0113)284 7001

7 Devonshire Square Cutlers Gardens London EC2M4YHTelephone (0171) 655 1000 Fax(0171)655 1001

Pennine House 39-45 Well Street BradfordBD1 5NUTelephone (01274) 734700 Fax (01274) 307239

Suite 688 Lloyd’s One Lime Street London EC3M7HATelephone (0171) 327 3388/3399 F ax(0171)621 1217


Your Ref: Date:

RBM 23 December 1998

A list of Partners can be viewed at the above address. This firm is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business.

Trinity Court


Manchester M60 8HS

Telephone (0161) 830 5000


Fax (0161) 830 5001

[email protected] R Croston Esq Crown Prosecution Service Central Casework United House York Y O l 9PQ

BY FA X :_____AND BY POST

Our Ref:

MLS.JH

Dear Sir

Adlington -v- Dukenfield and M urray

Further to your letter o f 23 December I am able to confirm that I have discussed this letter with the Assistant Chief Constable and because o f the holiday period when both he and his legal advisers are absent on holiday he will not be able to give any attention to this matter until after 4 January 1999 which is his first day back in the office. We understand that you yourself are away until that date in any event. We are sure that you will appreciate that the Assistant Chief Constable has his normal police workload to deal with and inevitably he will be very busy immediately upon his return. He will need to take advice in relation to these matters both from ourselves and from the Force Solicitor.

It has been confirmed to us that the Defendants in these proceedings will be making an application for Judicial Review. We understand that they will also make an application for the proceedings before the Leeds Stipendiary Magistrate to be stayed. We understand that you are still awaiting guidance from London in relation to whether or not CPS will give disclosure in any event but it may be helpful to you to know that the Assistant Chief Constable’s view is that any question o f voluntary disclosure should be postponed until the resolution o f the Judicial Review proceedings.

No doubt if you receive any further guidance from London before close o f business on Christmas Eve you will let us know and otherwise we will be in contact with you again about these matters during January.

Kindly note that until 12.00 noon on Thursday 24 December this matter is being dealt with by Mr Shepherd at our Manchester Office. The office closes at 12.00 noon on 24 December and the matter

Offices also at:

2 Park Lane 7 Devonshire SquareLeeds Cutlers GardensLS3 1ES LondonTelephone (0113) 284 7000 EC2M 4YH Fax (0113) 284 7001 Telephone (0171) 655 1000

Fax (0171) 655 1001

Suite 688 Lloyd’s One Lime Street London

Pennine House 39-45 Well Street BradfordBDI 5NUTelephone (01274) 734700 Fax (01274) 307239

EC3M7HATelephone (0171) 327 3388/3399 Fax (0171)621 1217


Your Ref: Date:

YBF/3341/89 23 December 1998

A list of Partners can be viewed at the above address. This firm is regulated by the Law Society in the conduct of investment business.

223 December 1998

G R Croston Esq Crown Prosecution Service

will be dealt with when the office re-opens by Mr Peter Metcalf from our Leeds Office.

Yours faithfully

HAMMOND SUDDARDSlcroston.dec23

13. DEC.* 1 998 17:05 i NO. 3723 P.


S o l i c i t o rs

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL. Telephone 0113 2832500.Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12054 Leeds 24. Email infoffrwalkermorri5.co.uk

Web: http://www.walkerniorris.co.uk


From Walker Moms RBM

Date 23 December 1998

Page 1 of 9

M atter N um ber MUR.313-1


Letter

Private and Confidential This facsimile may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. It must not be used by, or its contents copied or disclosed to persons other than the addressee. If you have received this facsimile in error please notify us immediately by telephone at the number listed above and return it to us by mail. We will reimburse postage.

To Michael Shepherd

A t Hammond Suddards

Fax I

Telephone

A list o f die pm y~n‘ tw o w j it open a itupccdon at eboix tJJnx. XcpJm d by TbelM i Sooty m Ac ambict o finvam m t hmneu.

23. DEC..1998 17:05 NO. 3723 P. 2/9


S o l i c i t o r s

Kings Court, 12 King Street, Leeds, LSI 2HL- Telephone 0113 2832500.Facsimile 0113 2459412. Document Exchange 12051 Leeds 24. Email [email protected]

Web: hccp://www.walkenn0fris.c0.uk

Mr Shepherd Hammond Suddards DX 14347 MANCHESTER

Our ref RBM/BQW/MURRA Y

Your ref

BY FAX 23 December 1998

Dear Sir

RE : HILLSBOROUGH

We apologise for the confusion and note that you are instructed by the Chief Constable o f South Yorkshire, Since you had not therefore had sight of the letter from HFSG to the South Yorkshire Police Authority a copy is attached,

Yours faithfully

R B Manning PARTNER Enc

A lia o f the pantleu ' fumes is open to iw pcoicn « she Jom e o d jitx , R tgkhud by The L*v> Society in ihe conduct o f m e m n i bm nos.

COCVJ .DEC. 1998 17:05

V sappcS5

u i s u j b i y j t )

Hillsborough Family Support Group

NO. 3723 P

strppd^

W J Wilkinson BA(Econ) CPFAClerk and TreasiirerSouth Yorkshire Police AuthorityP O Box 37Regent SrreetBarnsleySouth Yorkshire S70 2PQ

22 December 1098

Dear Sir

Adlimtton v Murray: Ad'liniEton v Duckenfield

I- I am the prosecutor in the above case, in which the defendants are charged before the Leeds Magistrates Court with serious offences arising out o f the disaster at the Hillsborough Football Ground in April 1980. I write on the advice o f leading counsel, as solicitor to the Hillsborough Family Support Group to express concern about the decision to fund the defence o f these two men. As you know, the defendants were senior police officers on duty at the ground when the disaster occurred. Both are charged with manslaughter- o f two representative victims, and with misfeasance. Mr Duckenfield is also charged with attempting to pervert the course o f justice.

It has recently been admitted publicly by Mr Ian Daines. Assistant Chief Constable, that the South Yorkshire Police Authority has agreed co fund the defence of these two men, We have suspected this for some time. The purpose o f this letter is to argue that the decision to provide finance appears to have been made irrationally and unlawfully.

’• • We refer to the following documents, all o f which are in your possession.

A. The Home Office Circular o f 4,fc December 1987 No .77/87B. The Home Office Circular o f 17* February 1998 HOC 4/1998

x ' C. Minute 38 o f the South Yorkshire Police Authority Meeting o f 1st August1997

£>. Minute 62 o f the South Yorkshire Police Authority Meeting of 19th September

- 1- ___

Phone 0151736191^. Fax [email protected] 1a floor Central Bofldlngs 41 Nortfa'Mv Street liverpool L2 6RR

23. DEC..1998 17:05 NO. 3723 P. 4/901512361936

E.

F.

0 .H.

IJ

1997.

Minute 151 o f the South Yorkshire Police Authority Meeting o f 27th February 1^08/

Minute 174 of the South Yorkshire Police Authority Meeting o f 24th April

The letter o f 25* September 1998 from Maureen Oades to me.Minute 86 of the South Yorkshire Police Authority Meeting o f 30th October I >8.The South Yorkshire Police Authority Scheme of Delegation.A document headed “Standing Orders. Interpretation. Issued January 1996" on the headed paper of the South Yorkshire Police Authority.

The Home Office Circular No 77/87. suggests that, in the case of a private prosecution, where a police officer has been acquitted and has not been awarded all his costs, the police authority may make up the difference. It also suggests that, in the ease o f a private prosecution, the authority should provide or fund legal advice and/or representation if the authority is “satisfied" that the officer has acted “in good faith” and has cxercised his judgment "reasonably”.

The Home Office Circular of 17"1 February 1998, 4/1998, replaces with immediate effect the 1987 circular, and suggests that under the very wide terms of section 111(1) o f the Local Government Act 1972, “it could be argued" that payment o f money to “officers (either former or serving) involved in criminal proceedings would in some wny facilitate or be conducive to a police authority's broad functions." The Circular emphasises that a police authority must take its own advice. It is noticeable that the “guidance"' has been prepared after consultation with “ACPO”. the Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, and thj Association of Police Authorities; it does not purporr to be an independent legal opinion.

This C irculnr seems to have coincided almost exactly with the report of the “Scrutiny" of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith in February o f this year. I note that on 27th Februaiy this year, your authority agreed to authorise the Clerk and Treasurer to consider applications from officers, serving or retired, for financial assistance in relation to possible private prosecutions arising out o f the “Scrutiny*.

For a reason which is not clear, the Resolution was taken under the replaced 1987 Circular. There is therefore no lawful authority to validate the decision taken on that day. The assertion, recorded in the minutes, that the members of the Authority •“remain o f the opinionthat the officers acted in good faith"7s extraordinary. The Enquiry o f Lord Justice Taylor o f 1989 found that there had been negligence, and blamed the two defendants (among other police officers). The failure o f these two to seal off the tunnel to the central pens at the Leppings Cane" end of the ground was a “blunder o f the first magnitude", and the immediate cause ofHeath. The then Chief Constable or’ South Yorkshire Police, uneqflfvocably accepted these findings.

Further. Lord Taylor found, at page 16. paragraph 98 of his Interim Report that Mr Duckenfidd misled Graliam Kelly and Gfefr iCirton o f the FA and Graham Mackrell of

-2-

23. DEC. 1998 17:05 * NO. 3723 P. 5/9[0!512<>Oiy.io « - - - , a . uu

01512361936

/ ' Sheffield Wednesday, at a.time when he knew there were fatalities (and that therewould therefore be an inquest and no doubt other formal inquiries). Duckenfield indicated that a gate had beat forced and there had been an inrush o f supporters, and pointed out to them the (ate allegedly forced on the screen.

9. in 1998. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith upheld these findings after, his “Scrutiny” referring scathingly 10 Duckenfield's “disgraceful lie**.

10. In July 1991. rhe Police Complaints Authority directed that charges o f neglect o f duty be preferred against both men. These charges were never determined because the Chief Constable o f South Yorkshire retired Mr Duckenfield on “health grounds", and it was thought to be unfair to try Mr Murray,

11. It is impossible in the light of this history to understand how your authority could have been satisfied in February 1998 that “the officers had acted in good faith"; and also impossible to understand how the other condition in the 1987 Circular, namely, that

^ the officers had exercised their judgment reasonably, could be thought to have beensatisfied. The minutes show that this condition was not even considered.

7/ic IVVff Circular ---------------------------- ■* -i • • +

12. The 1998 Circular was not appIk<L_lfit had been, it would have.become clear in myview that its terms were not met. and thatjhere was no lawftil authority for the provision o f tax-payers' money in this w a y to fond the defence in this case. There is no statutory authority. There is a limited power in relation to civil proceedings to pay damages and costs; but no power evenjn civil proceedings.to fund an action brought against an individual officer. Section 88 of the Police Act 1996 deals with "Liability for wrongful acts o f constables", and allows for the provision o f costs incurred and not recovered.

1 -V Parliament has not provided for the payments of any fines incurred by constables; orfor reimbursement o f costs incurred and not recovered. To have done so would have been surprising, since criminal liability is*iudividual and personal. You will note that the Circular indicated at the highest that “it could be argued" that to allow the payment to be made to officers, (either former or retired) involved in criminal proceedings would 'in some Way facilitate or be conducive to a police authority’s broad functions. For example, failure to provide financial assistance could Adversely affect the morale of the force if officers had to meet their costs after acquittal,"

I This is legal nonsense. The case law indicates that section 111(1) of the 1972 Act cannot be used in this way. The practice in relation to costs incurred by an acquitted person is set out in the Practice DiwctiotL&j&ts in Criminal P rucecJin^) ,91 Cr. App.R.8 which provides that a person acquitted after trial bn indictment should normally have his costs paid out o f central funds except where the defendant has

* brought suspicion upon himself andlias misled the prosecution into thinking the case against him is stronger than it is; or where he has been acquitted on a meritless technicality. How can it be said that police morale woulii suffer if the officers of a

-3-

23. DEC.. 1998 17:06 4 NO. 3723 P. 6/9uioi joiajo

force heard that one o f its members had been refused its costs on one o f the reasnmihf* grounds set out in this direction? reasonable

15.- i

In any event the South Yorkshire Police Authority seems to have gone wav bevnnH this highly dubious guidance in the 1998 Circular and authorised. L FebruarvT^s

a M lS r" r SS'StanCe 16 bC Siven by lhe C,erk and Treaswer in respect o f applications from serving or retired officers for potential and future criminal proceedings, in which, o f course, a defendant could be instructed on this basis able to advise that a defendant plead guHty?)

/ h'/cyiio'o/t and hlxdnsion o f the public

?* * * ]leltef 10 me 0f25,k SePte«nber 1998 says that the public were manef 1 ‘ ^ 1,16 T * " 5 whw this matter wa3 with as it was aprosecution of an any “ ? ? In connect,on ^ lhe prevention, investigation or prosecunon of any crime/ It seems to have been the basis for granting the fa c ia lassistance that there was no crime at all. and that the officers had acted in good faithIn any event it is submitted that paragraph 14 of Schedule 12 A to the LocalSvT tT ir"*Act *^2,'refers to prosecutions by South Yorkshire Police and nor by a private prosecutor against two former police officers.

I ? Funherrnort I do not understand how such a decision, even if it could be lawfully made, could be delegated to the Clerk and Triajffier. The Authority resolution of 27

T PUrP°-. ! 1° ddeSa“ - abs°luttl* 1116 ma 'ng process^ tS “ °"e and "* “ “ F ~ to ther llZ i j WaS a JOinf repon of the CIerk and Treasurer and the Chief

Constable. I understanu that the Clerk and Treasurer is not a Solicitor. ^ is imDlicit in

LTe«al'oroc "H r* 5'2‘5’ thal.any ^ d e r a t io n o f applications for financial assistancewould thiK H 7 ° U,iaSrtaaren °y a Person who is legally qualified andwould thus understand the danger of granting open-ended financial provision.

Some features o f the current criminalproceet/ingx

IS, You also s u r e s t in that letter that this relegation "was not viewed as a delegation

AssistantCh' Tr"d nMmths” Tt“'s have because Mr tfcines™ r S h k l- ,he SoU,h Yorkshire Poli“ . asserted earlier thishe i^ M h - ny P /o ^ 'io n s would “&H atthe first hurdle". Didhe repfttt (his a< the meeting of27**elSriHry? We do not know Wi,a< applications have

bJn MUy and Duckenfie[d- but we assume, for reasons that appearow. that authority has been given for any judicial review proceedings of the CPS

old I t « f° d!r tinU!.!he ~ 3nd c o u n X ap p ea lold style committal proceedings, as well as at'trial.

9 ?.nJ 8* P^embci- 1998. the Crown Prosecution Service, after five months of carefol study, rejected the applications of the defendants to take over and discontinue the

23. DEC, 1998 1 7:06 NO. 3723 P. 7/901512361936

prosecutions, ft is clear that the criminal proceedings are now likely to be protracted complex and very expensive. ea*

21.

24.

The prosecutions are straightforward. We enclose for your guidance a copy o f theinformations presented to the Leeds Magistrates Court last July on the basis of whichIhe summonses were issued. You will see that the allegations are based upon thefindings o f the Taylor Enquiry in 1989. supported by evidence that has come to theFamily Suppo^ Group ,n 1997-98. Negligence has been admitted again and again bythe Chief Constable in court proceedings. It has never been disputed that the actsalleged agamsr the defendants were the acts of negligence that caused the deaths of the % people.

Before the decision o f the Crown Prosecution Service was announced on IS"* December, the solicitor for Mr Murray indicated that it was highly likely that an adverse decision ot the CPS would be challenged by judicial review proceedings. At the hearing o f the case before the Leeds Magistrates Court on 21“ December it was made clear by leading and junior counsel for Mr Murray, in the presence of his solicitor. Mr Manning, and by junior counsel for Mr Duckenfield. that a decision haH already been made to seek judicial review ofthe CPS decision. The magistrate was told this by counsel for the defendants when he was dealing with the questions of timetable and voluntary disclosure o f documents.

However. i( was also made clear, although a concluded decision had been made to apply for judicial review, that the defendants had asked the CPS for their “reasons”- alternatively ih d r > l i c y ' behind the decision, and that those reasons of policy might be received by 2'J* December.

No legally-aided lawyers could proceed in this way. Professional obligations exist which require that a lawyer musr assess the prospects o f success before committing nard-pressed public funds to an expensive application fo r judicial review. I am advised by leading counsel rhat-the prospects of quashing the CPS decision in such proceedings are small on the following, among other, grounds. The CPS have told us all what criteria ihey were applying; the defendants argued that the CPS were in a good position to assess the public interest involved in the prosecution: the CPS, Police Complaints Authority and Coroner were air misled by a cover-up by the South Yorkshire police, the magnitude o f which has become apparent only after the Home ottice ordered ihe release ot documents.thjs year; and the defendants have alternative remedies in :he Magistrates* court.

The facr r!iat the court was assured that applications for judicial review would be made suggests that the South Yorkshire Police Authority has already agreed, before the CPS decision, to fond these applications, irrespective o f their merits. Counsel would not have told the court that the applications would be made, if funding was not in place Neither would they have told counsel for South Yoricshire Police o f their decision to apply to the High Court: they knew that the fact o f impending applications wa*

-S - '

23. DEC. .1998 17:07 * NO. 3723 P. 8/901512361936

ro i^ . o d«d»ioTO,h.t the South Votfahire police and the CPS were nak,„s th,t day abou t voluntary disclosure to the prosecution o f documents in their DosseSlon i,

boadi“ decidcd , 0 * * " * becaucc> o f the assurance from counsel that Judicial review applications would be lodged r in the first two weeks of January") on behalf o f both defendants.

*. v

25 J 1’? ? , 0SeCUti°n 3l!d the CourT hive also feeen told that both defendants have estimatedaside f ^ I aL C3St ™U beftneeded « committal proceedings. The court has set aMde four weeks bann in g 19* April 1999, and the time was chose to accord with the convenience o f leading counsel for the defence. The court has been told that two leading counsel will appear, one for each defendant. No doubt two juniors will also

r ° f,SOl,Cltr Lwdl,W for Mr Murray has indicated that therewin d so be an abuse of process application to the magistrate to stay the proceeding He intends to aryue that this should be heard on a different occasion from the committal, and before it. I suspect that the defendants will seek leave to move for judicial review of any adverse decision upon this issue. This is hardly surprising as your Authority does not appear to have placed any restriction as to the amount or duration of the financial assistance to the defendants.

26 nY kT Sati T nSCl lhe Prosecutl°n h4S rstrong prima facie case onthe charges alleged; and that an abuse of process application is likely to fail We have

j ,,Iourr , s5es? orrwhich has c°me r° °s in * • ^that the South Yorkshire Police force has_coyered up facts which are embarrassing as to the nature and extent o f its admitted negligence, and that the CPS. Coroner and

once Complaints Authority, infer ii/hk were misled when they were pursuing their various enquiries between 1989 and 1992. I shall willingly help you fa ther about thisV » l l i ,

-7. Of| course, tne trial of this matter could take many months. From all these facts, youwill see that ihe exposure of the South Yorkshire taxpayer (in relation to its own costs.

i t n r rl!e m u ” o f t^ \ 0rd?r o f" * n s ° f P°unds- I should make it clear that neither i nor the Hillsborough Family Support Group, on whose behalf 1 act. wish in any wayo deprive either defendant o f the means to conduct a proper defence to these charges

S u / U/ y apJ >ly‘ l,ke any°ne else- for leSal w'd if they are unable to fund the ° the de encc themselves. In that event they would be subject to the usual

restramrs and discipiines ofthe legal aid system. I believe that the defence, with access to puolic tunds from your authority, are seeking at present to inflict unnecessary expenses upon us by recourse to every possible type of legal hearing, in the knowledge mat we do not have such access, and are instead dependent on private donations and fund-raising events. Neither defendant lives in South Yorkshire, but the South

defendantSP° IlCe ^ 8 ° fitS own in the dijicharSe or acquittal of these

1 'tmtiuxiuH \

28- The decisions taken pursuant to the Resolutions ofthe Sciith Yorkshire Police

-6-

23. DEC, 1998 17:07k . NO. 3723 P. 9/9

u i d u j d i w d

Authority appear, on the information available to. me, to be unlawful. Irrational, ultra vires and proccdurally improper on various grounds. We have an interest, as do you and South Yorkshire taxpayers, in ensuring that public money is not wasted or spent wrongly in the course of this criminal litigation. I look forward to your reply. You will appreciate that we are obviously considering an application for judicial review ourselves, supported by some South Yorkshire taxpayers, and an approach to the District Auditor, We invite you to reply by the 15* January 1999.

Yours sincerely

Ann Adlinjjton Solicitor

-7-

ADLINGTON v DUCKENFIELD & MURRAY

OUTLINE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF

ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE OF

SOUTH YORKSHIRE POLICE

1. South Yorkshire Police seek only to do what is right and proper with

regard to this application. Nevertheless, they have a number of concerns

about the proposed witness summons. They can be summarised as follows :

(a) whether it is appropriate for the Court to issue the summons which is

sought;

(b) there has been no time properly to consider voluntary disclosure ;

(c) the cost involved.

IS IT APPROPRIATE TO ISSUE A SUMMONS :

2. Pursuant to sections 97 and 97A of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, the

Court must be satisfied that:

(a) the Assistant Chief Constable is able to produce “a document or other

exhibit likely to be material evidence” for the purposes of committal

proceedings ;

(b) that the Assistant Chief Constable will not voluntarily produce the

document.

3. In order to determine whether a document is likely to be material

evidence, the Informant must show that each document sought is both relevant

and admissible. (See Reg v Greenwich Juvenile Court ex p Greenwich LBC

[1977] 76 LGR 99 and R v Reading Justices ex parte Berkshire CC [1996] 1 Cr

App Rep 239 and H(L) [1997] 1 Cr App R 176.) Determining whether a

document is relevant involves relating the document to specific issues in the

case. Thus the issues in the case must have been isolated before it is

appropriate to issue a summons. Each document must also be shown to be

admissible in evidence. Documents desired merely for cross-examination or

to identify a relevant line of inquiry or challenge, cannot be obtained by this

route.

4. It is clear from the above requirements that an informant cannot use

section 97 or 97A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 to obtain discovery to

found a prosecution.

5. Further, it is said that there is no power of discovery in a magistrates’

court and section 97 cannot be used for such purpose (R v Sheffield Justices ex

p Wriglev [1985] RTR 78 and R v Skegness Magistrates’ Court ex p Cardv

[1985] RTR 49).

VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE

6. The Force have had no time within which to consider voluntary

disclosure.

COSTS

7. There are vast quantities of documentation sought, who is to pay for the

cost of the work to be undertaken in dealing with it all ?

In Re David Duckenfield and Bernard M urray

Submissions as to Issue o f Summonses

The informant

1 Ann Adlington is solicitor to the Hillsborough Family Support Group, which supports this application. The Group’s members are relatives o f victims o f the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989.

The issue o f summonses.

2 A magistrates’ court has jurisdiction over any indictable crime committed in England and Wales by virtue o f section 2 o f the Magistrates Courts Act 1980,

3 The Informant applied to the South Sefton M agistrates Court for summonses identical to those now sought. Those summonses were issued on 26th June 1998. Solicitors for M r Duckenfield and M r Murray objected that under section 1 o f the Magistrates Court 1980 there was no power in a justice in Merseyside to issue a summons. There followed correspondence between the informant, the court and the Clerk which is attached as A nnex I. The summonses were withdrawn by consent for the reasons set out in the letters.

4 The Informant appeared, together with leading counsel, before the Chairman o f the Bench at South Sefton and the Clerk to the Justices when the summonses were granted. The same annexes were presented to the justice as are attached to this application, except A nnex I. These submissions are a slightly expanded and modified version o f those presented at South Sefton.

5 The decision has been made to lay informations before this court because M r Murray lives in Pontefract, in the county o f West Yorkshire, and a justice in Leeds has jurisdiction to issue the summonses, on any view, by virtue o f section 1 (2) (c) o fthe Act, because M r M urray resides in his “area” . The “area” to which the section applies is by virtue o f section 1 (8) a ’’commission area” . This phrase has the meaning, by virtue o f section 150 o f the Act, as amended, given by section 1 o f the Justice o fthe Peace Act 1997, namely “every metropolitan county” and “every retained county”. Leeds and Pontefract are therefore in the same “area”.

6 A justice therefore has jurisdiction to issue a summons to M r Duckenfield, who lives in Bournemouth, by virtue o f section (1) (2) (b). It is submitted that it would be “expedient” to proceed against M r Duckenfield in Leeds, rather than commencing separate proceedings against him in Dorset.

7 Leeds has been selected by the Informant because it one o f the nearest convenient locations for people travelling from Liverpool which is unlikely to be the subject o f a technical jurisdictional challenge.

8 The justice is therefore invited to consider first the summons against M r Murray, and, if it is granted, to consider the summons against M r Duckenfield.

The reasons fo r the laying o f inform ations

9 David Duckenfield and Bernard Murray, then respectively a Chief Superintendent and a Superintendent in the South Yorkshire Police Force, were on duty in the control box at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield, on 15* April 1989, when a semi-final o fthe F.A. cup was to be played between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest football clubs. Attached are chapters 1 to 5, 9 to 11, and 16 o f the Taylor Report. The facts set out therein form the basis o f the allegations against the two potential defendants. (Annex

A )

10 Other sections o f the Taylor report make other criticisms o f the police in general, and o f other bodies.

11 Lord Taylor said at paragraph 265 o f his report;

“The immediate cause o f the gross overcrowding and hence the disaster was the failure, when Gate C was opened, to cut off access to the central pens which were already overfull.”

12 The evidence o f forensic pathologists called at the mini inquests in 1990 was that in almost all cases death resulted rapidly from unconsciousness that was caused by the crushing that followed the inrush o f spectators, in full view o f the two men, following the order to open the gates, and a failure to divert the incoming spectators from pens 3 and 4.

13 M r Duckenfield was in overall charge, and primarily responsible for the decisions and lack o f decisions which led to the deaths. M r Murray shares in this responsibility. He knew the ground much better. He had been in an important position o f responsibility at the identical semi-final the year before, when the Liverpool supporters were also at the Leppings Lane end o f the ground. A similar concentration o f supporters in the pens 3 and 4 had occurred, as was clear to him, but crushing had been avoided by the simple expedient o f diverting the incoming supporters from the tunnel which led to those overcrowded pens.

14 In 1989, M r Duckenfield was entitled to call on M r M urray’s experience. M r Murray, like M r Duckenfield, failed, in breach o f his duty, to take, or to demand, or to recommend, the obvious steps to avoid the obvious dangers.

The right to bring a private prosecution

15 This right was preserved specifically by section 6 o f the Prosecution o f Offences Act1985. The provision was reviewed in R v. Bow Street M agistrates Court, ex parte South Coast Shipping Company (1993) 96 Cr. App. R. 405 (Annex B).

M anslaughter

16 It is alleged that the actions and omissions o f the two were a substantial cause o f death; that they owed the deceased a duty o f care and were negligent; and that a jury is entitled to find that the negligence was o f such a gravity as to amount to a crime within the principle in i? v. Adom ako [1995] 1 A.C. 181.

“The essence o fth e matter which is supremely a jury question, is whether having regard to the risk o f death involved the conduct o f the defendant was so bad in all the circumstances as to amount in their judgment to a criminal act or

omission.” [1995] 1 A.C. 187E. (Annex C)

17 This test was not thought to be correct in 1990 when the DPP decided not to prosecute any individual in relation to the disaster. The prevailing legal view was that involuntary manslaughter o f this kind involved the complicated concept o f recklessness deriving from statutes setting out crimes o f causing death by reckless driving and o f

criminal damage.

18 In Adomako, the House o f Lords did not change the law. It declared that gross negligence rather than recklessness was and is the basis o f the crime. That approach

governs the facts o f this case.

19 Two representative victims have been selected for the manslaughter allegations.

M isfeasance in public office

20 The same facts will be put forward to support allegations o f this offence, the ingredients o f which are set out in R v. Dytham (1979) 69 Cr. App. R. 387 (Annex D). P roof that gross negligence was a substantial cause o f death is not a necessary element

o f the offence.

D oing acts tending and intending to pervert the course o fp u b lic justice.

21 This allegation against M r Duckenfield alone refers to the allegation that he lied aboutthe cause o fth e disaster, shortly afterwards, when he must have realised that inquests and/or other legal proceedings, would flow from the tragedy. He falsely and deceitfully alleged that the gates had been broken by the supporters. (Taylor,

paragraph 98)

22 The offence is very wide. It consists in

3

“The doing o f some act which has a tendency and is intended to pervert the administration o f public justice”

R v. Vreones [1891] Q.B. 360, 369, (Annex E ) and it includes;

“conduct which relates to judicial proceedings, civil or criminal, whether or not they have yet been instituted but are within the contemplation o f the wrongdoer whose conduct was designed to affect the outcom e o f them. That conduct includes giving false information to the police with the object o f among other things putting the police on a false trail.”

R v. Selvage and Morgan (1982) 73 Cr. App. R. 333 (Annex F)

history o f the case

This is set out in the chronology, A nnex G . Verdicts o f accidental death were recorded by the jury in 1991, and were not overturned by the High Court in 1993. The verdicts are, however, no bar to the bringing o f criminal proceedings, and it is the contention o f the Hillsborough Family Support Group that the inquest proceedings were deeply flawed. No prosecutions o f any kind have been instituted.

A “Scrutiny” into the new evidence which the Group suggests became available after the judicial review proceedings was conducted by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith for the Home Secretary in 1997-8. He upheld the findings o f Taylor LJ, but found no grounds for referring the matter to a fresh inquiry, for quashing the inquest verdicts, or for requesting the Director o f Public Prosecutions to re-open the investigation.

A summary o f the “Scrutiny” is to be found in Hansard\ for the 18th February 1998 (Annex H). The facts as set out in that report show why the institution o f proceedings is justified. A full copy o f the report o f Lord Justice Taylor and the “Scrutiny” o f Lord Justice Stuart-Smith will be supplied on request.

Preparations for the committal bundle are well advanced. Statements o f dozens o f witnesses are available now, although the prosecutor does not yet have the originals. Reliance will be placed on admissions o f basic facts made by the two proposed defendants in evidence to the Taylor enquiry and the inquest. It is not thought that the justice will consider it appropriate at this stage to consider the evidence, but these copy statements and transcripts o f evidence will be supplied if requested.

The timing of the prosecution

27 It is submitted that this is not a factor in the decision whether to issue summonses. However, it is pointed out here that although the prosecutor has had the transcripts o f evidence given to the Taylor Enquiry and to the inquest, the majority o f the eyewitnesses now relied on were not known to the prosecutor, because they had not given evidence at those earlier enquiries. These statements have been disclosed to the Group in the last year, in the course o f the “Scrutiny” .

28 Further, the prosecutor believes, and has grounds for this belief, that the Director o f Public Prosecutions was given selective and incomplete accounts o f the disaster in 1990, to the advantage o f the South Yorkshire Police, when the decision was taken not to prosecute anyone in connection with the disaster. This matter is at present the subject o f further study.

3 Raymond Buildings Gray’s Inn London WC1

10 July 1998 Alun Jones QC

Chronology o f case

15th April 1989

17th April 1989

4th August 1989

15th December 1989

18th April 1990

6th August 1990

19th November 1990

29th March 1991

11th July 1991

November 1991

April 1992

August 1992

April 1993

5th November 1993

5th December 1996

30th June 1997

February 1998

The day o f the disaster

Lord Justice Taylor appointed to conduct enquiry. Evidence taken in May and June.

Publication o f Taylor interim report.

Implicit admission by solicitors on behalf o f Chief Constable o f South Yorkshire Police o f negligence

“Mini” inquests held

Two leading counsel apparently advised DPP not to prosecute (Opinions not available).

Inquests resume before a jury.

Jury returns accidental death by majority o f 9 to 2.

Police Complaints Authority direct disciplinary proceedings against Duckenfield and Murray for neglect o f duty.

Duckenfield retired from police on grounds o f ill-health. Disciplinary proceedings abandoned thereafter against both men.

Hillsborough families request Attorney-General to apply for fresh inquests.

Attorney-General declines to apply.

Six bereaved families were granted leave to move for Judicial Review o f inquest verdicts.

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Granada Television broadcast “H illsborough ” and presented new evidence.

Secretary o f State for the Home Department appointed Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to conduct a “scrutiny” into the fresh evidence.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reported.

1085 18 FEBRUARY 1998 Hillsborough 1086

Hillsborough

3.31 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Hillsborough stadium disaster.

Few events in recent years have touched the lives of so many people. The families and friends of the 96 Liverpool fans who died at Hillsborough have suffered immeasurably. The whole nation has been profoundly disturbed by what occurred that day. Although almost nine years have now passed, many of the families and others felt very strongly indeed that new evidence was available that would cast new light on the events. As Home Secretary, I was determined to do all that I could to establish whether that was indeed the case.

On coming into office in May last year, I gave that

«estion intense and urgent consideration, and on 30 June, innounced to the House that the Attorney-General and [ had decided to appoint Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, a senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, to conduct

an independent scrutiny of the matter. His terms of reference were

“To ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 which was not available;

(a) to the Inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor; or

(b) to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General for the purpose of discharging their respective statutory responsibilities; or

(c) to the Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police in relation to police disciplinary matters;

and in relation to (a) to advise whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify establishment by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a further public inquiry; and in relation to (b) and (c) to draw to their attention any evidence not previously considered by them which may be relevant to their respective duties; and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest.”

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has now submitted his report, which I am publishing today. It is available in the Vote Office. His scrutiny is the latest in a series of lengthy and detailed examinations of the evidence in this case. The public inquiry led by the late Lord Justice Taylor considered fully the causes of the disaster and made wide-ranging recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events. Those have had a profound and positive effect on both crowd safety at football grounds and on the policing of football matches.

The deaths that occurred were also the subject of inquests conducted by the coroner for the Western district of South Yorkshire in two parts in 1990 and 1991. Those inquests involved more than 80 days of public hearings. A further investigation was conducted by the West Midlands police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, to establish whether there were any grounds for criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the police. That investigation involved taking more than 5,000 statements. At a later stage, in November 1993, a judicial review of the coroner’s proceedings upheld the inquest verdict of accidental death and the conduct of those proceedings. We have now had this further detailed scrutiny by a senior Lord Justice of Appeal.

The main causes of the disaster have long been clear. They were identified by Lord Taylor in his interim report in August 1989. Lord Justice Taylor did not attribute all the blame to a single cause or person, but in paragraph 278 of his report he made it clear that

“the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control”.

Both Lord Taylor, and now Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, have been damning in their condemnation of the senior officer in charge that afternoon, the then Chief Superintendent Duckenfield. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith refers in his report to

“Mr. Duckenfield’s disgraceful lie”

about one of the gates at Hillsborough—

“Gate C being forced open by fans".

The South Yorkshire police have in turn accepted the main share of responsibility for the disaster. Sheffield Wednesday football club and the local authority were also criticised by Lord Taylor.

With any major disaster, it is almost inevitable that, over time, some new information may become available, but that does not necessarily mean that the outcome of any previous inquiries would have been different. What is crucial is not just whether the information is new, but whether it is of such significance—to use the phrase in the terms of reference—as to justify a new inquiry.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has considered in great detail all the evidence put before him. That included all the relevant evidence presented to the earlier inquiries and inquests. He has looked equally rigorously at all the information presented to him, by individuals and official bodies, including those representing the families of those who died and others who have acted in support of them. He has produced a thorough and comprehensive report and goes into immense detail to analyse and reach conclusions on each of the submissions made to him.

Let me briefly summarise what Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says on the key allegations relating to video evidence and the cut-off time of 3.15 pm for the inquest, and allegations of interference with witnesses. I refer first to the video evidence. Two sets of allegations were made to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith about video evidence. They were, first, that video tapes were stolen from the club’s control room to conceal material evidence from the earlier inquiries. There is no dispute that the theft of two tapes took place. The tapes were pictures from the club’s closed circuit television cameras, not from police cameras. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that, in any event, the tapes would have shown nothing significant. Moreover, he is satisfied that all the police tapes were made available in their entirety to Lord Taylor’s inquiry and to the coroner.

The second allegation relating to video tapes, with which Lord Justice Stuart-Smith deals at considerable length, was made principally by Mr. Roger Houldsworth, a video technician at Sheffield Wednesday football club. It was that the police had blamed their failure to see overcrowding in pens 3 and 4 on camera 5 being defective, when it was not; that evidence of the video tapes taken by camera 5 was deliberately suppressed and concealed; and that two police officers gave deliberately false evidence that camera 5 was not working correctly.

553 CDI22-PAG2/I

1087

[Mr. Jack Straw]

Hillsborough 18 FEBRUARY 1998 Hillsborough 1088

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the police did not try to blame their failure to spot overcrowding on the terraces on faulty CCTV equipment. He says that the police controllers had a good view over the terraces from the control box, and did not pretend otherwise. He also concluded that

the importance of Mr. Houldsworth’s evidence has been exaggerated out of all proportion’*,

and that Mr. Houldsworth’s existence and evidence were known to the Taylor inquiry and to the coroner. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concludes that the allegation that the police hid video tape evidence of the terraces is “unfounded”.

There are allegations about the conduct of the inquest, and in particular about the cut-off time of 3.15 pm. One of the issues that has unquestionably caused most distress to those bereaved at Hillsborough was the decision of the coroner to rule that all those who had died had received the injuries that caused their deaths by 3.15 pm. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the coroner did not say that all those who died did so before 3.15 pm, or that all those who became unconscious subsequently died. It was only in relation to how or by what means the deceased came to their deaths that the cut-off time was imposed. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the cut-off time did not limit the inquiry undertaken by the inquest, and that he does not consider the inquest to have been flawed. The Taylor inquiry considered in detail the response of the emergency services after 3.15 pm as well as before, and concluded that no valid criticism could be made of them.

The main allegations concerning interference with witnesses were that specific witnesses had had pressure put on them by the West Midlands police, and that the South Yorkshire police had collected evidence from their own officers in an unacceptable manner.

On the first allegation, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concludes that there was no improper attempt to alter the evidence of those witnesses. On the second, he records that a number of the initial statements made by South Yorkshire police officers were subsequently amended on the advice of solicitors to the force before being submitted to the Taylor inquiry. He says that in a very few cases, which are referred to in appendix 7 of the report, what was excluded was either factual or comment in which factual matters were implicit He says that

“it would have been preferable”

for those matters not to have been excluded, but he is satisfied that Lord Taylor’s inquiry was not in any way inhibited or impeded by what happened.

report also deals comprehensively in appendix 10 with the 10 questions posed by the Granada Television programme in December 1996.

Taking those and all other considerations into account, the overall conclusion that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reaches is that there is no basis for a further public inquiry. He also finds no basis for a renewed application to quash the verdict of the inquest, and he concludes that there is no material that should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police disciplinary

authorities that could cause them to reconsider the decisions that they have already taken. He also concludes that none of the evidence that he was asked to consider added anything significant to the evidence that was available to Lord Taylor’s inquiry or to the inquests.

I, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have considered Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s report very carefully. We have no reason to doubt his conclusions. That will, I know, be deeply disappointing for the families of those who died at Hillsborough and for many who have campaigned on their behalf.

I fully understand that those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough feel betrayed by those responsible for policing the Hillsborough football ground and for the state of the ground on that day. I hope and believe that the changes that resulted from the Taylor inquiry will mean that such a disaster will never happen again.

However, there is another sense in which the system has failed the Hillsborough families. As Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says in chapter 7 of his report:

I understand the dismay that they have that no individual has personally been held to account either in a criminal court, disciplinary proceedings, or even to the extent of losing their job”.

That highlights some of the serious shortcomings in the police disciplinary system. Earlier this year, the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced a report that made major recommendations for change. I shall respond fully to that report soon, but what happened after Hillsborough is a prime example of why we must improve the current arrangements.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith also comments on whether coroners’ proceedings are appropriate at all in respect of a major disaster that has already been the subject of a public inquiry. He endorses the recommendation of a Home Office working group on disasters and inquests—published in March 1997—that the role of the coroner after such a public inquiry should be limited.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s report emphasises the exceptional difficulty of the coroner’s task in conducting the main inquest. It placed an unreasonable and, I think, unnecessary burden on the families involved, given that the Taylor report had covered substantially the same ground. Certainly, I am sure that Hillsborough proved that the inquest system in its present form is an unsuitable means of dealing with disasters of that kind. I think it would be far better—above all, for the bereaved families if there were one fully comprehensive inquiry into the causes of death and the wider circumstances.

When I instigated the scrutiny, I said I would do my best to ensure that the evidence considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith was published. Most of the main material that he has considered is contained in appendices to his report. Much of the other evidence that he has considered is already in the public domain, consisting of transcripts of public hearings or material considered by the Taylor inquiry. As I told the shadow Home Secretary, I am arranging for the other material considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to be placed in the Library of the House, save where there are overriding reasons for doing otherwise. Let me make it clear that the material that will be published will include all the original statements made by South Yorkshire police officers, together with the amended versions submitted to the Taylor inquiry.

554 CDI22-PAG2/2

1089 Hillsborough 18 FEBRUARY 1998 Hillsborough 1090

All hon. Members will have profound sympathy with the families and friends of those who die at Hillsborough. We can scarcely begin to comprehend what they have suffered. In his report, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says:

“I realise that my report and advice will come as a disappointment

to them”—

the families and friends of those who died“especially since they have had their hopes raised that something more could be done. But I cannot allow compassion to cloud my judgement. I have had to look dispassionately and objectively at what is said to be fresh evidence, in the light of the evidence which had previously been considered” .

My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have had to consider Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s report in the same light, and we accept its conclusions.

The entire country is united in sympathy with those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. We cannot take the pain from them, but I hope that the families will recognise that the report represents—as I promised an independent, thorough and detailed scrutiny of all the evidence that was given to the committee.

Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire): I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have early sight of his statement, and even earlier sight ot the report. It is a long report, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I have not had the opportunity to read it all, but I have read carefully the chapter that summarises the findings in Lord Justice Stuart-Smith s own words. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to publish all the material, both unamended and amended. I am sure that that was the right thing to do.

We, like Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, express great sympathy for the relatives of those who died, and the spectators who were injured. We, too, find it difficult o imagine anything more horrific than the experience of those who endured it, and of those who lost their fam ilies— including children—in that appalling incident.

I have four questions on the report. First, is the Home Secretary satisfied that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith ful y examined all the so-called new evidence that has emerged, not least from the families, since the Taylor inquiry. Is he personally satisfied that none of it was newly significant/ Secondly, is he satisfied that the families’ complaints about the so-called 3.15 pm cut-off point have een comprehensively addressed by the judge? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman realises that, although his decision to establish this independent scrutiny was broadly welcomed, it always carried the risk that it would heighten expectations, particularly those of the families who were involved. That brings me to my third question. Does he accept that they will be disappointed by the outcome of the inquiry and that some of them may feel let down.

My fourth and final question to the Home Secretary is this. By agreeing that there is no basis for a further judicial inquiry; for a reopening of Lord Taylor s inquiry, for a renewed application to the divisional court, for the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under the Coroner’s Act 1988; or for any new material to be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Complaints Authority, is he suggesting to the House and the country that matters relating to what happened and

how it happened in the worst tragedy in British sporting history are now closed as far as the Government are concerned?

M r. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. Of course, the whole House agrees with the eloquent and compassionate words that he used to express some understanding of the nightmare that the families have faced since that afternoon. He asked four questions, the first of which was whether I am personally satisfied that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith fully examined the new evidence, or the claimed new evidence that has emerged. Yes, I am satisfied, and so is my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

It does not follow that when one establishes an inquiry of this kind, one is bound to accept its conclusions, but as the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the summary in chapter 7, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has conducted a most careful examination of the evidence and has reached clear conclusions. It would have been extraordinary if my right hon. and learned Fnend the A ttorney-G eneral and I had not followed those conclusions in those circumstances.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I am satisfied that the families’ complaints about the 3.15 pm cut-off point have been dealt with satisfactorily in the report.I am satisfied about that so far as the report is concerned. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith states on page 41, paragraph12 that in his view the coroner had been “widely misrepresented” about what the 3.15 pm cut-off point was meant to mean. He states:

“It should be noted that the Coroner, did not say that all those who died did so before 3.15, or that the medical evidence was to

this effect.”The point about the 3.15 pm cut-off was much narrower.I do not think that that will be accepted by the families. The combination, the conjunction, of the coroner’s inquest before and after the major public inquiry raises concerns about the purpose of such inquests when there is such a major inquiry, about which I commented in my statement.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the families will be disappointed. Inevitably, there was always a risk that in accepting, as I did, that there was, prima acie, sufficient new evidence needing this kind of scrutiny, the families’ hopes would be raised and that that could lead to one of the four possibilities that are mentioned m the terms of reference. That was inevitable. I do not m the least think that it was wrong to set up the inquiry, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman supported mein doing so. >

The families are disappointed. With Madam Speaker s permission, I saw them at 2.15 pm this afternoon and again with her permission, I gave them copies of the report. They are upset, disappointed and angry about its conclusions. They are also angry that I have accepted those conclusions. I understand that, but what I ask them to do—and, obviously, what they were not able to do in the three quarters of an hour that I had with them—is to read the report carefully and, I hope, m time, to com to understand that the establishment of this further scrutiny and the way in which Lord Justice Stuart-Smith conducted it show great respect for their bereavement an continuing concerns.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I believe that, as it were, this matter is now closed We are announcing today that there are no groun

555 CD122-PAG2/3


[Mr. Straw]

reopening a further full public inquiry of the sort that was conducted by Lord Justice Taylor, the coroner’s inquest, disciplinary matters against the police or certain other matters. Those are our decisions and they will have to stand.

The feelings of the families will live with them for ever, so the matter is not closed in that sense. All of us who have lost children in any circumstances have some understanding of the way in which people never get over the deaths of children, even if they die from natural causes; it is still more terrible if they die from violent causes such as this. However, there are other lessons that we have to learn. As I have said, those relate to the purpose of coroners’ inquiries, to the fact that we should not put families through the mill twice, as happened in this case, and to the need to change the police disciplinary system.

Mr. Eddie O’Hara (Knowsley, South): One has to live on Merseyside to understand the palpable sense of grief, resentment and anger that still exists in our part of the world at what we regard as the continuing injustice as a result of the Hillsborough affair.

My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith had to consider two questions: was there new evidence; and was it sufficiently strong to be a basis for reopening the inquiry? I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to paragraph 14 and related paragraph13 on page 41 of the report, which deal with the 3.15 pm cut-off, which is one of the most important sources of anger. Referring to new evidence about whether people were alive after 3.15 pm, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says:“it is difficult to see the relevance of further evidence that person A was alive at 3.15 pm but died subsequently”—

referring to whether people might have survived if they had been given better medical treatment. He justifies that conclusion by referring to the divisional court, which rejected such grounds, concluding that such questions“were not relevant to the inquiry into how— i.e. by what means— the deceased had come to their deaths.”

If a person had a cardiac arrest in hospital and was not satisfactorily treated, would that be regarded as simply death by cardiac arrest, or would the consideration of neglect come into it?

Mr. Straw: The point that my hon. Friend raises is often raised in relation to the conduct of inquests. It comes up when, for example, there have been allegations of deaths in custody and in many cases when there has been a violent or unexpected death. The relatives believe that part of the purpose of the inquest is to allocate blame for what has happened, whereas the purpose of the inquest is much narrower: to try to identify the cause of death. It is in that context that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith makes his remarks. It is important to recognise that all that he says in paragraph 14 on page 41 follows the decision of the divisional court, which followed a thorough judicial review hearing, not to grant a reopening of the inquest.

Again, my hon. Friend flags up a need for changes in the way in which investigations are held into major disasters such as Hillsborough. I repeat that we believe that, in future, there should be what are called mini-inquests into the immediate causes of death,

followed by a comprehensive inquiry, which, in practice, would include the purposes of subsequent main inquests under a senior judicial figure, and a final, formal inquest, which would simply receive the main inquiry’s report! In our judgment, that would be a far more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters, and far less frustrating to the relatives and friends of the bereaved. °

M r. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Although the report has not provided the Home Secretary with support for a further general inquiry, does he recognise that this outcome will make it even harder to lift the cloud of grief and frustration that hangs over the families and friends of those who lost their lives? Bearing in mind Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s reference to the “disgraceful lie” of a senior police officer, the evidence of material omitted from police evidence and Lord Justice Taylor’s assertion that the principal cause was a police failure, is it not understandable that the families will be bitterly disappointed that the door seems finally to be closed on any disciplinary action against particular individuals who should bear some responsibility? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at that aspect of the issue and give priority to a reform of police disciplinary procedure?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it will not now be even harder to lift the clouds of grief over the bereaved families. I cannot speak for them, but it would have been far worse had I not set up this further scrutiny. They came forward with serious new allegations and it was important that they were examined by someone of the experience and distinction of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right—there can be no dispute about it—that the families are bound to be bitterly disappointed by the fact that no one has taken the blame for what happened. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith makes that clear and shares the bitter disappointment of the families, as do I and, I believe, the House. As I said in my earlier remarks, that underlines the need for there to be significant changes to the police disciplinary system.

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): My right hon. Friend has mentioned in the context of the report his consideration of the future conduct of inquests. Will he extend his review to consider carefully the way in which relatives are treated during inquests? They are treated in a most dispassionate way, which results in much of the grief that is expressed vocally by many of the people, including my constituents, who suffered in this terrible tragedy.

Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. We have the helpful report of the disasters and inquests working group, established under the previous Administration, which made recommendations in March last year. Part of the reason for the frustration—often anger—at inquests, of relatives and others who are bereaved, goes back to a misapprehension about their purpose. To some extent, that will be dealt with by the kind of changes that I have already outlined for inquiries into major disasters.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside): My right hon. Friend acted promptly and properly in commissioning the scrutiny, for which I thank him.I agree that the bereaved parents will remain upset.

556 CD 122-PAG2/4


disappointed and angry and, in that knowledge, will he give the matter further consideration? Does he accept that

-*it is not possible for all of us at this early stage to assess ’the report’s full implications and to read it in detail to form our judgment? Therefore, will he support calls for an opportunity for the House to consider the report further, so that we may give a reasoned assessment of the report and attempt to deal with the unresolved problems and traumas faced by the parents? I support them in not wishing to leave matters simply as they stand.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her opening remarks, and I fully understand her concern— which is widely shared—that there should be a debate on the matter. I am probably one of the few who has had an opportunity to read the report thoroughly, and I shall pass on my hon. Friend’s remarks to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take them into account.

M aria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his consideration in seeking your permission, Madam Speaker, to speak to the families first before making it. He has accepted the deep disquiet that they feel as a result of the report by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, and I know that it is deep.I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend’s undertaking to publish all the available evidence. What would his attitude be if, at some stage, the families were to consider private prosecutions or taking further action?

M r. Straw: Subject to certain constraints, individuals in this country may take private prosecutions. That is entirely a matter for them and for the judicial processes. It would be improper for me to comment.

M r. Derek Twigg (Halton): I speak with some knowledge, as I was on the terraces at Hillsborough that day and not in some directors’ area. I had to wait for two hours to see whether my friends were alive, and I know that a number of people from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) were killed on that day.

May I express my bitter disappointment—not at the Home Secretary, whom I thank for organising the scrutiny—but at the conclusions of the report? The families will be bitterly disappointed by the fact that no one has been brought to justice, and such an injustice does not give confidence in our judicial system. I ask my right hon. Friend for his comments on that. If we cannot have a debate on the Floor of the House on the report, would you, Madam Speaker, be prepared to allow an Adjournment debate on the subject in the future?

M r. Straw: Of course, I understand my hon. Friend’s personal feelings in the light of the fact that he was present on that terrible day. I understand, too, that those feelings will live with him for the rest of his life. The families are bitterly disappointed and, as I said, I hope that their disappointment will be directed at my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and me as well as at Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, because it is our view that he has done a thorough, comprehensive and detailed job with the utmost integrity. He has gone into all the allegations carefully and, as he said, it was his job to look at the evidence presented to him and to put compassion

i - C D I2 2 -PA G 2 /5

tx

aside, as the families would have wished him to do. It is a matter of huge frustration that no one has been brought to justice. That represents severe defects in terms of police discipline, and I have spoken about the need for that to be changed. It is not possible to put the clock back nine years to do so.

M r. Robert N. W areing (Liverpool, West Derby): Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be deep unease on Merseyside and elsewhere, and that people will feel that there is no justice in this world? Does he further accept that because few of us have had the opportunity to read the report—although he was kind enough to analyse it with the parents—far more scrutiny is required by the House of Commons; possibly by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which should be asked to report?

Furthermore, I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) and ask that there should be a proper debate following a reasonable period to allow us to read the report. For example, it would seem that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith ruled as not significant a couple of videos stolen from Sheffield Wednesday. How on earth could he say that they were not significant if he had never seen them? Many questions have been raised by the report, and the parents will not feel that justice has been done until they are answered.

M r. Straw: Lord Justice Stuart-Smith explains why he came to that conclusion and how he could judge that the videos were not significant when he had not seen them. One of the videos was from a misplaced camera angle. It was known that it had been pointing at a wall. Therefore, the tape was of no value, even though it was stolen. As for the other video, two points are made. One is that it was a club video. Police videos in part covered the same area. In addition, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith makes the point that the police admitted that they could see with their own eyes what was going on on the terraces and did not need this crucial video evidence. That is one example of why it is very important that everybody should read the report’s details. When they do, they may be reassured that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has gone into the matter in great detail and with great care.

That brings me to my hon. Friend’s first point. I have already accepted that it is a matter of fact—there is no question about this—that there is great disappointment among the bereaved families and friends of those who died on that terrible day. I do not think that it is correct to say—to pick up my hon. Friend’s words—that there is no justice in this world. On reflection, he will perhaps accept that Lord Justice Taylor’s inquiry was conducted impeccably, with great thoroughness. There has been no criticism of either the way in which he conducted that inquiry or his conclusions. That may be only partial justice in the context of this terrible tragedy—it is partial justice. I understand that the conduct of the inquests was controversial, but that has a great deal to do with the system of inquests, and that was not found to be unjust.

It is inevitable that an inquiry’s conclusions may be uncomfortable to one side or another. I hope that those who read the report will understand that it represents a thorough inquiry in the best traditions of British justice.

M r. Vernon Coaker (Gedling): As one of the Members of Parliament who represents the Nottingham


[Mr. Vernon Coaker]

area, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of those Members, to express our sympathy with the families and people of Merseyside? Does the Home Secretary agree that the people of Nottingham, along with those on Merseyside, will want a full and frank debate on the report, which amounts to more than 200 pages and has only just been published today? Will he do all that he can to ensure a full debate, so that people will have the opportunity to express their views and opinions to me and other Members of Parliament, and we can express those views in the Chamber?

M r. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend’s point. I should have made the point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that there is obviously considerable feeling about the need for a debate. I shall pass that on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is the Home Secretary aware that I find it difficult to believe that 95 people were killed but nobody is to blame? Is he further aware that inquests on the deaths of many people, such as after mining disasters and for this matter, are not fit and proper places to start the procedure? He would do well, during this Parliament, to introduce measures to ensure that inquests are fit to deal with not just the death of three people in a house fire but with mass disasters. I have never believed that inquests are competent to do the job.

Will the Home Secretary do me a favour? If, perchance, there is another unfortunate incident of this kind, will he not invite these tinpot judges and justices—distinguished though they may be—to deal with the problem? I have never believed that they understand working-class culture. Over the past few years, all these people—Lord Justice Scott, Lord Justice Taylor, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith— have been investigating matters. What do they really know about what makes working-class people tick?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes the point that no one is to blame. It is not the case that the earlier inquiries found no one to blame. Indeed, on page 49 of his interim report—Cm 765—Lord Justice Taylor was explicit and damning. He said:

“the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control .

There has been no cover-up of that. There was a failure of police control, and Lord Justice Taylor pulled no punches whatever in reaching that conclusion. I hope that that gives the lie to my hon. Friend’s suggestion that judges are incapable of holding investigations into matters of this kind. I note that whenever there is a call for an inquiry, there is a great demand for members of the Court of Appeal to hold them.

It is inevitable that not everyone will be satisfied by the result of an inquiry because such judgments defy human behaviour. However, Lord Justice Taylor’s report showed great understanding of soccer and soccer culture. He was an ardent soccer supporter himself. I had the occasional discussion with him about it. That is one of the reasons

why he was chosen to hold the inquiry. When my hon. Friend has had a chance to digest Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s report, he will appreciate that it has gone into the allegations with great care.

M r. Tony Clarke (Northampton, South): Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is that clear evidence that will make it impossible for the families to accept disappointment, inasmuch as they know that the police failed and that nothing is being done about that? Will he say a few words about the evidence that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith put forward in respect of the stolen tapes? Surely, if the stolen tapes are missing, we must ask two questions. First, who was responsible for that theft and, secondly, for what reason were they stolen if not for concealment? It is for that reason that I add my support to the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for a full debate in the House to examine the individual pieces of evidence and missing evidence before coming to a conclusion.

M r. Straw: I appreciate that I am one of the few people who have had the benefit of reading the report. If my hon. Friend reads it, as I know he will, he will see that the question of the two missing tapes is dealt with in some particular detail. I have explained why Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reached the conclusion that he did about whether the fact that they were stolen was significant. This goes back to the point that I made at the beginning of my statement. When we consider whether a major public inquiry into events that took place nine years ago should be reopened, with all the inevitable problems caused by the effluxion of time, the issue has to be not only whether there is new evidence—which there might be—but whether it is of such significance as materially to alter the conclusions of the first inquiry. That is what Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has examined. He has come to the conclusion that I have described about the two missing tapes.

It is a matter of supposition why the tapes were stolen. People steal things for the purposes of concealment or for more prosaic reasons. They may have wanted the tapes for their own use. No one has ever been apprehended for the theft of the tapes, but in the circumstances described and set out in the report, it is palpable that they were not material to the question whether the police were to blame for failing to recognise that a serious disaster was taking place at the Leppings lane end. That was the issue. If Lord Justice Taylor had said that the police were not to blame and that the tapes were likely to disclose why, the tapes would have greater significance. However, Lord Justice Taylor said that the police were to blame. He also pointed out—this was confirmed by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith— that one of the reasons why the police were to blame was that they did not have to rely on video evidence; they could see with their own eyes what was going on and they failed to make proper decisions following that.

M r. Ross Cranston (Dudley, North): May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of police discipline and the feeling among the relatives that no one has been brought to justice? May I ask him specifically whether Lord Justice Stuart-Smith addresses the issue of early retirement by police officers to avoid disciplinary procedures? May I press him for a speedy response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on police discipline?

55X CDI22-PAG2/6

1097 Hillsborough 18 FEBRUARY 1998 1098

M r. Straw: I have already referred to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s remarks about the fact that no one has been brought to justice and that no one has suffered any disciplinary proceedings or even lost their job as a result either of those terrible events, or of Lord Justice Taylor’s clear conclusion that a failure of police control was the principal cause of the disaster. By implication, it is clear that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith is not happy with what happened, and neither are we. I have looked in great detail at the helpful report from the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member. As I said earlier, we intend to make an early announcement about that matter, with a view to improving the system of police discipline.

Point of O rder

4.21 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you prior notice of this point of order, which concerns the accuracy of statements recorded in the Official Report. We all judge the Official Report to be of immense use when we write our speeches or assemble arguments, and it is important that statements recorded in it are accurate, so I ask your guidance. On 21 January, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) introduced a ten-minute Bill about air weapons. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and we have discussed the matter, although sadly he cannot be here this afternoon. I should say that I wish him no ill and I am sure that it was confusion of facts, rather than any other cause, which led to this point of order. The Official Report states:

“In the past few years, one police officer was killed and another 7,000 injured by airgun attacks.”— [Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1014.]

However, in response to a written question from me, the Home Secretary said that, although he had no figure for the past two years, he could find no fatal injuries and a total of 22 injuries recorded during eight of the past 10 years. I can find no other evidence of anybody being killed. Every policeman injured is a serious matter, but the discrepancy between 22 and 7,000 is large and I wondered whether you could give your judgment on that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The answer is a polite no. It is not a point of order: the hon. Gentleman is challenging the figures used by another hon. Member and that is not a matter for the Speaker, but a matter for debate and argument. It is not for the Speaker of the House to determine the figures or to become involved in arguments about the substance of debates. The hon. Gentleman may try to use other methods to bring the matter to the attention of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

559 CDI22-PAG2/7