FEATURE
FINE FOR HILLSBOROUGH SAFETY OFFICER, 30 YEARS ON
Following news that the stadium safety officer in charge at the time of the
Hillsborough disaster has been handed a £6,500 fine, Lindsay Orr, associate at insurance risk and commercial law firm BLM, explores the rationale behind the fine, how it was calculated and what’s next for the inquiry.
Former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary and stadium safety officer Graham Mackrell was recently sentenced to a £6,500 fine for failing to discharge a duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act on the day of the Hillsborough disaster.
Mackrell initially faced a prosecution under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975; however, he was ultimately convicted under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to ensure there were enough turnstiles. This omission led to unduly large crowds to build up outside the ground, causing significant congestion, which in turn was a contributing factor to the fatal crush on the stands.
The prosecution relied upon two pivotal points of evidence, the first being Mackrell’s knowledge of the 1986 Green Guide safety manual. This guide prioritised the importance of fan safety and, following the tragedy at Bradford City’s Valley Parade stadium in 1985, had been updated just months before Mackrell’s appointment. The jury at Preston Crown Court heard that not only did Mackrell have knowledge of this, but that this had been minuted through correspondence with the local council.
The second decisive piece of evidence was given by the prosecution’s expert witness, John Cutlack. He stated that it was generally acknowledged in the late 1980s that most fans arrived at football stadiums in the hour before kick-off, and that plans should be made to deal with the resulting foot traffic.
12
“Judge Openshaw concluded that Mackrell’s offence
did not directly cause the deaths inside the ground.”
To secure the conviction, the prosecution relied on Cutlack’s evidence, along with the guidance in the Green Guide, which set a maximum flow rate.
The jury heard that there had been overcrowding outside the entrance to the stand due to the low number of turnstiles, their poor design and their location. The prosecution argued that they could not have safely accommodated the arrival of 10,100 Liverpool fans.
By 2.30pm on the 15 April 1989, 30 minutes prior to kick off, the jury heard that the crowd outside the turnstiles had become a major issue, resulting in discussions in the police control box overlooking the terraces. Just minutes later, the 95 deaths that led to prosecutions (one further death occurred later) occurred inside the central pens at the Leppings Lane end of the ground.
The financial penalty handed to Mackrell was calculated on the basis of his own family income, as the conviction was on a personal, not a club or company basis. This can be contrasted with a situation where a corporate body
is prosecuted, and the financial penalty is calculated under the Sentencing Guidelines on the basis of turnover after considering culpability, risk and harm.
Judge Openshaw concluded that Mackrell’s offence did not directly cause the deaths inside the ground. These comments were of particular significance as they differentiated between the allegations that Mackrell faced and those faced by Hillsborough match commander, David Duckenfield.
While Duckenfield and Mackrell were charged in the same proceedings, it was Duckenfield alone who faced trial on a charge of gross negligence manslaughter. Specifically, this charge related to crushing within the central pens at the Leppings Lane end of the football club.
Mackrell, who did not face a gross negligence manslaughter, was only found guilty of failing to ensure there were enough turnstiles to prevent unduly large crowds building up outside the ground.
Following these conclusions, next on the agenda will be the two outstanding issues of the potential retrial of Duckenfield for gross negligence manslaughter as well as the existing separate charges faced by Duckenfield and three other defendants: South Yorkshire Police chief superintendent Donald Denton, chief inspector Alan Foster and solicitor Peter Metcalf which relate to perverting the course of justice.
www.blmlaw.com
www.tomorrowshs.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
