AC 3.1
Judgement
● Legal judgements
○ is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties
■ in a legal action or proceeding
● Judgement One; Hillsborough (1989)
○ The official inquiry into the hillsborough disaster was not valid
■ as after many more inquiries were carried out
● it was declared that media reporting, initial verdicts from the
inquets and police evidence
○ are all invalid and inaccurate.
○ The Interim report
■ by Lord Justice Taylor 1989
● criticised the police for failure to handle the buildup of fans
outside of the grounds
○ as well as criticism them for not reacting fast enough
once they released the disaster was unfolding
■ The Interim report
● was also very critical of Duckenfield,
○ the police chief, for failing to take effective control of the
situation
● In addition,
○ this report was critical of South Yorkshire police
■ who attempted to blame the “late and drunk”
supporters for the deaths.
○ The director of public prosecution
■ decided not to bring criminal charges for anyone
● despite the Taylor report declaring
○ the police failures caused the incident,
■ due to insufficient evidence against everyone
who was there.
■ This contradiction between the Taylor reports conclusion and the
director of public prosecutions decision
● shows lack of validity between the two sources
○ as neither can agree on who was at fault and the
response to this
○ The next issue the Hillsborough disaster faced; the coroner's ruling.
■ The coroner limited how far the inquest would go
● by declaring that by 3:15PM all victims were either dead or
brain dead
○ due to this there would be no reason to look at what
happened after this time.
■ This questions the validity of the inquest
● due to the time limits-
○ if we cannot explore what happens after 3:15
■ an accurate picture cannot be made as the
disaster and deaths continued after this time.
■ By leaving this evidence out,
● key evidence is being withheld.
, ○ The time restraint
■ meant that police and emergency services could
not be properly examined
● as they did not arrive until after this
point,
○ meaning crucial evidence may
have been missed.
■ Therefore
● there is a lack of validity
○ as the investigation was not thorough.
■ Anybody who died after this time was ignored
● their evidence was not included in the
case.
○ Lord Justice Stuart Smith
■ later appointed to review the new evidence
● which had not been submitted and found that lots of police and
witness statements
○ which were crucial to the investigation
■ had been altered
■ This again demonstrates a lack of validity
● as the evidence was altered to manipulate the outcome of the
initial enquiry and further enquiries
○ or withheld altogether
■ Therefore the initial enquiry lacked accuracy
● as a complete picture of what happened
○ could not have been made without this evidence and
knowledge.
■ Later in 2009,
● the home secretary
○ requested police to release secret files containing
detailed evidence.
■ The files were initially withheld,
● making the inquiries invalid
○ as evidence again wasn't
included.
○ In September 2012,
■ the Hillsborough Independent Panel
● declared that police had deliberately falsified more than 160
witness statements
○ in an attempt to blame fans for both the master and the
deaths.
■ The following report clears supporters of any wrongdoings.
● It was also stated that crowd safety was compromised on
every level
○ that out of the 96 people who died, 41 deaths could
have been prevented.
■ This evidence then prompted a fresh inquest
● the high court quashed the original
verdict.
■ Teresa May
● ordered fresh police inquiry
○ which meant that the police could now face
manslaughter charges at trial.
, ■ The indicates that the original inquiry was
invalid
● due to withhold evidence and falsified
evidence
○ as well as inaccurate verdicts
regarding the deaths.
■ This again shows how
previous inquests had
lacked accuracy
○ In March 2014,
■ the new Hillsborough inquest opened in Warrige and lasted for two
years,
● the longest inquiry in legal history.
■ Finally,
● in 2016
○ the Hillsborough inquest jury
■ concluded that the 96 football fans who died in
the disaster were unlawfully killed.
■ The jury
● said the behaviour of liverpool fans played no part in the
deaths
○ instead blamed the police failures, stadium design
faults, and a delayed response
■ by the ambulance service for the large amount
of casualties.
■ As this is the final and over running conclusion
● this suggests that media reporting, initial verdicts from the
inquests and police evidence
○ are all invalid and inaccurate
■ as a result cannot be considered as valid
○ In June 2017
■ The CPS charged 6 people with offences arising out of the
Hillsborough disaster.
● Former chief superintendent Duckenfield has been charged
with manslaughter
○ is now facing retrial for manslaughter as the first jury
failed to reach a decision.
● In November 2019,
○ Duckenfield has been found not guilty of gross
negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans
● Judgement Two; Mark Duggan
○ The judgments in inquiries into suspicious deaths have often been
challenged.
○ Mark Duggan at the inquest the coroner directed the jury.
■ He said if you think that the police officer acted in self-defence
● that you should return the verdict of lawful killing.
○ On appeal,
■ the Duggan family argued that you should have
also said
● that if you think it was not self-defence
they should return with an unlawful
killing verdict.
Judgement
● Legal judgements
○ is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties
■ in a legal action or proceeding
● Judgement One; Hillsborough (1989)
○ The official inquiry into the hillsborough disaster was not valid
■ as after many more inquiries were carried out
● it was declared that media reporting, initial verdicts from the
inquets and police evidence
○ are all invalid and inaccurate.
○ The Interim report
■ by Lord Justice Taylor 1989
● criticised the police for failure to handle the buildup of fans
outside of the grounds
○ as well as criticism them for not reacting fast enough
once they released the disaster was unfolding
■ The Interim report
● was also very critical of Duckenfield,
○ the police chief, for failing to take effective control of the
situation
● In addition,
○ this report was critical of South Yorkshire police
■ who attempted to blame the “late and drunk”
supporters for the deaths.
○ The director of public prosecution
■ decided not to bring criminal charges for anyone
● despite the Taylor report declaring
○ the police failures caused the incident,
■ due to insufficient evidence against everyone
who was there.
■ This contradiction between the Taylor reports conclusion and the
director of public prosecutions decision
● shows lack of validity between the two sources
○ as neither can agree on who was at fault and the
response to this
○ The next issue the Hillsborough disaster faced; the coroner's ruling.
■ The coroner limited how far the inquest would go
● by declaring that by 3:15PM all victims were either dead or
brain dead
○ due to this there would be no reason to look at what
happened after this time.
■ This questions the validity of the inquest
● due to the time limits-
○ if we cannot explore what happens after 3:15
■ an accurate picture cannot be made as the
disaster and deaths continued after this time.
■ By leaving this evidence out,
● key evidence is being withheld.
, ○ The time restraint
■ meant that police and emergency services could
not be properly examined
● as they did not arrive until after this
point,
○ meaning crucial evidence may
have been missed.
■ Therefore
● there is a lack of validity
○ as the investigation was not thorough.
■ Anybody who died after this time was ignored
● their evidence was not included in the
case.
○ Lord Justice Stuart Smith
■ later appointed to review the new evidence
● which had not been submitted and found that lots of police and
witness statements
○ which were crucial to the investigation
■ had been altered
■ This again demonstrates a lack of validity
● as the evidence was altered to manipulate the outcome of the
initial enquiry and further enquiries
○ or withheld altogether
■ Therefore the initial enquiry lacked accuracy
● as a complete picture of what happened
○ could not have been made without this evidence and
knowledge.
■ Later in 2009,
● the home secretary
○ requested police to release secret files containing
detailed evidence.
■ The files were initially withheld,
● making the inquiries invalid
○ as evidence again wasn't
included.
○ In September 2012,
■ the Hillsborough Independent Panel
● declared that police had deliberately falsified more than 160
witness statements
○ in an attempt to blame fans for both the master and the
deaths.
■ The following report clears supporters of any wrongdoings.
● It was also stated that crowd safety was compromised on
every level
○ that out of the 96 people who died, 41 deaths could
have been prevented.
■ This evidence then prompted a fresh inquest
● the high court quashed the original
verdict.
■ Teresa May
● ordered fresh police inquiry
○ which meant that the police could now face
manslaughter charges at trial.
, ■ The indicates that the original inquiry was
invalid
● due to withhold evidence and falsified
evidence
○ as well as inaccurate verdicts
regarding the deaths.
■ This again shows how
previous inquests had
lacked accuracy
○ In March 2014,
■ the new Hillsborough inquest opened in Warrige and lasted for two
years,
● the longest inquiry in legal history.
■ Finally,
● in 2016
○ the Hillsborough inquest jury
■ concluded that the 96 football fans who died in
the disaster were unlawfully killed.
■ The jury
● said the behaviour of liverpool fans played no part in the
deaths
○ instead blamed the police failures, stadium design
faults, and a delayed response
■ by the ambulance service for the large amount
of casualties.
■ As this is the final and over running conclusion
● this suggests that media reporting, initial verdicts from the
inquests and police evidence
○ are all invalid and inaccurate
■ as a result cannot be considered as valid
○ In June 2017
■ The CPS charged 6 people with offences arising out of the
Hillsborough disaster.
● Former chief superintendent Duckenfield has been charged
with manslaughter
○ is now facing retrial for manslaughter as the first jury
failed to reach a decision.
● In November 2019,
○ Duckenfield has been found not guilty of gross
negligence manslaughter of 95 Liverpool fans
● Judgement Two; Mark Duggan
○ The judgments in inquiries into suspicious deaths have often been
challenged.
○ Mark Duggan at the inquest the coroner directed the jury.
■ He said if you think that the police officer acted in self-defence
● that you should return the verdict of lawful killing.
○ On appeal,
■ the Duggan family argued that you should have
also said
● that if you think it was not self-defence
they should return with an unlawful
killing verdict.
