The taylor repport on hillsborough

[Captain Kong]

As the Hillsbourough Disaster was mixed up with the Orgreave affair,
here is a separate, post.
THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT BUT THE OFFICIAL REPORT.
READ CAREFULLY ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO GET THE PICTURE OF WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN.............................





The Taylor Report
Justice Taylor
Any evaluation of the Taylor Report needs to highlight that there were, in fact, two Taylor Reports-The Interim Report and the Final Report. This is important because many people would refer only to the Final Report in the opinion that it was the definitive account, however, the two reports largely have a different emphasis. The Interim Report dealt with the cause of the disaster and surrounding issues whilst the Final Report had as its central tenet all seater statia. It would have been more accurate to refer to them as 'First and Second' Reports.

Immediately after the Hillsborough Disaster, the Home Office set up an inquiry under Lord Justice Taylor. It's remit was:


To inquire into the events at Sheffield Wednesday Football ground on 15th April 1989 and to make recommendations about the needs of crowd control and safety at sports events.

The Inquiry which was held in Sheffield, began on 15th May 1989 and lasted thirty-one days. Taylor's findings as laid out in the Interim Report can be summarised as follows:


1. The immediate cause of the Disaster was the failure to cut off access to the central pens once gate C had been opened. This caused the overcrowding which led to the Disaster.

2. The central pens (3 and 4) were already overfull because there was no numerical control of entry nor any effective visual monitoring of crowd density.

3. Under the strain of overcrowding in Pen 3, a barrier collapsed, exacerbated by what Taylor referred to as the "sluggish reaction and response when the crush occurred". Lack of leadership and the small size and number of gates in the perimeter fencing hindered rescue attempts.

4. Gate C, an 'exit' gate between the inner concourse and the outside, was opened by the police because of the dangerous congestion at the turnstiles. There was no recognition, either by the club or the police, that unless fans arrived steadily over a long, drawn-out period the turnstiles would not be capable of coping with the large numbers involved. This was made worse by the fact that the operational order and police tactics did not consider the possibility of a large concentration of late arrivals. This situation, according to Taylor, was made worse by a drunken minority and the club's confused and inadequate signs and ticketing.

The Interim Report of Lord Justice Taylor was warmly received by bereaved families and survivors. However, time has proved the inadequacies of Taylor for reasons which will be explained here.

Taylor very clearly laid the blame for the disaster at the door of the police but in so doing he effectively 'let off the hook' those other agencies involved. On a more general level the Taylor Report can be criticised for its selective use of evidence. More than three and a half thousand statements were taken for the Inquiry together with one and half thousand letters received. Taylor stated that from this mass of evidence it was necessary to select:


...only sufficient good and reliable evidence...

Of course given that it was the West Midlands Police who were selecting this 'good and reliable evidence', then this begs the question 'good for whom'? The police actually used a grading Assessment to judge the quality of the witness - impressive, average, poor. Such selectivity exteneded to which witnesses were actually called to give evidence in person. Although Taylor stated that the cause of the disaster was the breakdown of police control he weakened his claim by elsewhere commenting upon the "excellent service" given by South Yorkshire Police:


...over many years the South Yorkshire Police have given excellent service to the public.

It was in this context that he referred to their excellent handling of large crowds including football fans and the miners dispute. Clearly many would disagree with his judgement here.

It is worth quoting albeit briefly, Taylor's views of those other agencies who many hold jointly responsible for the 96 dead.

He made no criticism of the Football Association in his Interim Report stating that their decision to use the Hillsborough ground as the semi-final for the second consecutive year was fine as the 1988 game :


...had been considered a successfully managed event.

However in his Final Report he criticised the venue:


...in selecting Hillsborough as the venue for the cup semi-final, the Football Aasociation did not consider in any depth whether it was suitable....

He did not though consider that the choice of venue was the main cause of the disaster. Taylor made criticism of Sheffield Wednesday Football Club stating that they had contributed to the disaster because:


The Leppings Lane end was unsatisfactory and ill suited.

Others would criticise both the Club and Sheffield City Council for the fact that the ground did not have a valid safety certificate:


The certificate took no account of the 1981 and 1985 alterations of the ground.

Taylor made no criticism of the Emergency Services:


...no valid criticism can be made of the response by the St John Ambulance Brigade, by SYMAS, or by the Fire Brigade on 15th April.

However, a large number of people, including ambulance officers would say that Taylor was too generous in his comments regarding South Yorkshire Ambulance Service.

A close analysis of Taylor reveals contradictions in his reasoning. On the one hand he exonerates SYMAS yet on the other hand he makes recommendations regarding co-ordination of emergency services. People have argued that there was a distinct lack of co-ordination by the Ambulance Service, that there was a lack of triage and a marked delay in sending for the Major Accident Vehicle.

The use of the gymnasium as a temporary mortuary, much criticised by families, was largely ignored by Taylor.

As previously stated the Final Report of Taylor place an emphasis on Football Stadia, it was:


...directed to making final and long-term recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports grounds...

Major criticisms to levelled at the Taylor Report:

1. The fact that it was split into 'Interim' and 'Final' has led to a situation where the Final Report is seen as just that Taylor's final word on the subject of Hillsborough when in fact it about all seater stadia. Ask for the Taylor Report in any library and you are likely to be handed the Final Report. In effect this lessens the impact of the criticism of the police made in the Interim Report as this first report becomes lost over time.

2. The second major criticism of the Taylor Inquiry is that the evidence was not taken under oath. The long-term impact of this cannot be emphasised enough. It means that in any subsequent court proceedings where people have brought Taylor into the equation, the person presiding has diminished the evidence by stating that it was not sworn evidence. The inquests are probably the clearest example of this. So when Duckenfield admitted at the Inquiry that he had lied when he said that fans forced the gate open that statement has little or no validity as it was not said under oath.

In concluding many people feel that Taylor was well received in the first instance ( i.e. the Interim Report) because there seemed to be a real acknowledgement of the breakdown of police control. Perhaps it was politically expedient in the early days after the disaster when feelings were running so high to appear to be giving the people what they wanted. However, it clearly ended there. The Final Report was a shift away from away from the cause of the disaster and ever since families have been trying to regain the ground lost between the Interim Report and the present day.

[Captain Kong]

THE INQUESTS.........

The Inquests

As is usual practice the inquests into the deaths at Hillsborough were opened and adjourned shortly after the disaster. This allowed for the release of bodies for funerals. The inquests would later be resumed for so-called 'mini-inquests'(an unprecedented move) and then the final stage of the inquests. They were to be recorded as the longest inquests in British legal history.

The Coroner's Court

It is important to outline precisely the role of a coroner's court so that people can understand it's place within the legal hierarchy of courts but also that the wide discretionary powers of the coroner are also understood.

The coroner's court differs greatly to other courts. The procedure is not adversarial it is inquisitorial ( the word 'inquest being derived directly from the latin 'inquisito meaning 'inquiry ). The role of the court is to ascertain:

1. Who the deceased was.
2. How, when and where the deceased came by their death.
3. The particulars concerning the death for the purpose of the Registration Acts.

Most importantly to acknowledge is the fact that the Coroner's Court is not about apportioning blame - liability is not a matter for the Coroner's Court. This impinges on the range of verdicts which are possible in the inquest. There is a prescribed list of verdicts from which to choose but the verdict has to be in line with the medical cause of death. That is the theory anyway.

After ninety days of evidence the jury in the Hillsborough Inquests recorded a verdict of ACCIDENTAL DEATH - verdict consistent with the medical cause of death? Hardly. That is the practice. The inquests were to prove possibly the major vehicle for the injustice of Hillsborough. Here is how it happened.

The Mini Inquests

The mini inquests (as they became known ) were unique as normally in controversial deaths inquests are not resumed until the DPP has ruled whether or not there are to be any prosecutions arising out of the death. In the case of Hillsborough however, the Coroner resumed the inquests one year on from the disaster before the DPP had made a ruling. The Coroner indicated that the reason for this was to assist the families by being able to make public limited details. However, families would later realise that their legal representatives ( the Hillsborough Steering Group of solicitors) actively supported and encouraged this phase of the inquests as it assisted them in gaining further information which could lead to them being able to settle survivors claims. In other words the mini inquests suited the solicitors far more than they were beneficial to the bereaved.

The inquests at this stage went along at the rate of approximately eight per day. As one family left by one door another would enter by another. Details of the deceased would be read out together with the blood alcohol reading ( this happened even in the case of a ten year old boy who had been killed ). This emphasis on blood alcohol in every case clearly placed in the mind of the jury that alcohol was a dominant factor. This was grossly unfair as in many cases the actual reading was negative. The pathologist who had carried out the post mortem would also give evidence and a summary of the deceased's movements up to the point of death would be read out. A map would pinpoint any known sightings of the deceased in the pens.

Crucially none of this evidence could be challenged. That was the major factor for allowing the inquests to proceed in this limited fashion. Again the families solicitors had agreed to this situation. Therefore, apart from the fact that Doug Fraser (representing all the families on behalf of the Steering Committee) was outnumbered by nine to one (by other solicitors representing interested parties), he could not challenge any of the evidence that was being given.

It was a ridiculous situation that caused the families great distress. Many were seeing the summary facts surrounding their loved ones for the first time. Moreover they were listening to this information in climate where blood alcohol levels were constantly being referred to. Moreover, they had to travel to Sheffield for these inquests and had to attend court in the Medico-Legal Centre which also houses the city's mortuary where their loved ones had been brought.

The evidence was slanted, one sided and went unchallenged. This phase of the inquests did immeasurable damage. Families were told that the unchallenged issues would be dealt with at the final stage of the inquests but this never happened. Families generally felt betrayed and hurt by the mini-inquests:


That night I felt I had just lost him all over again. I couldn't stop crying thinking about him. They played on our emotions and our illness-it was so cruel.

I came away from the mini-inquest totally distressed and bewildered.

The mini-inquests revived the initial lies about the disaster and gave the media fuel to fan the flames. The one sided evidence was reported in the media in the context of drunkeness and violence. These inquests were carefully orchestrated. Families were policed in and out of the procedure. The West Midlands Police (in charge of the whole operation) might have been wearing their expense account Armani Suits but they didn't fool everyone. They were there for one reason and one reason only - to make sure everything went according to plan - their plan.

The Resumed Inquests (Final Stage)

The Director of Public Prosecutions ruled in September 19990 that there would be no criminal prosecutions arising out of the disaster. In the case of the police he ruled that there was 'insufficient evidence to justify proceedings'. The fact that there were to be no prosecutions meant that the inquests could resume. Families, still smarting from the mini-inquests, now had to put all their hopes into this final phase.

The inquest reopened in November 1990 again in Sheffield but this time in the city's town hall. Once again the families were heavily outnumbered in terms of legal representation. In total there were twelve representatives of interested parties. Of these, six were representing the police compared with one for the 43 families who were represented. Joan McBrien, who had lost her son John represented her families interests having been totally disillusioned with the group representation at the earlier stage. This was a courageous stance from a bereaved mother. She sat at the front of the courts with the lawyers and took on the might of the establishment and went the distance in the marathon of an inquest. Her courage, dignity and perseverance for the truth should not go unrecorded.

It was at this stage that the coroner imposed the 3.15 cut off. What this meant was he would not hear any evidence after 3.15 p.m. on the day on the day of the disaster. His reasoning was that there had to be a cut off at some point and 3.15 was the time that the first ambulance arrived on the pitch and by that time people would have already have received the injuries from which they were to die. The coroner's logic was extremely convenient. This 'cut-off' meant that it ruled any evidence in respect of the emergency response was ruled 'inadmissable'. Families at this stage discussed with their legal representative the possibility of going to the high court to have this decision of the coroner's judicially reviewed. They were advised however, to wait until the end of the inquests and add up all the errors!

Once again the jury were subject to evidence aiming to paint a picture of ticketless, drunken fans. The selective use of evidence was so apparent. Only local residents and Licencees who agreed with the emerging established version of events were called to give evidence. The police used the court to reaffirm their view of the disaster and in some cases to expand upon their opinions of what was wrong with the country as a whole. Superintendent Marshall( the officer who requested that the gate be opened), used the court to liken the crowd on the day of the disaster to 'an army which could not be stopped'. Comparisons were made with the rioting at the World Cup in Italy in 1990 and the Trafalgar Square Anti-Poll Tax demonstration.

Senior Officers were reminded by the coroner that they did not have to answer anything which might be prejudicial. Fans giving evidence were afforded no similar reminder. Indeed fans were treated appallingly. It was a very traumatic time for them. However, they realised the importance of being able to give evidence which stated the facts of what had happened. After all they were the closest to the deceased in the pens. Their evidence was crucial. In any event they were treated in many instances to hostile cross-examination and were clearly made to feel that they were somehow responsible. Many fans left the inquests in a very traumatised state, frustrated by the constraints of the court. Fans would be instructed to appear on a particular day but if proceedings overran they would be told to come back the next day. This made things worse. The fans would have had a taste of how they would be treated and had more time to ponder upon it. This was a needlessly intolerable situation to put traumatised people through:


I went back to Liverpool that night terrified of the next day. I had seen how they had treated [name], trying to catch him out and I thought, "I've got to go through that tomorrow".

I was a witness but I wasn't treated like one with the line of questioning. I felt I had done something wrong.

Their tone was hostile towards me.... It was as though I was a defendant...as if I had to defend myself. That's the way I felt. That shouldn't have been the case.

Survivors were not represented at the inquests. However it might be expected that the barrister representing the families would be supportive of them given their (survivors) support for the families. This was not the case. One survivor who gave evidence highlighted the sense of isolation that this created. He stated:


Even when he [the families' barrister] stood up I still felt that I was on my own. There was no one to represent me. In that situation you are literally on your own and what you say can be manipulated any way they want because you're dealing with professional people.

The survivors generally were treated very shabbily as witnesses. They only had sight of their statements minutes before they went in to give evidence. The statements were then taken from them before they gave evidence. This was in sharp contrast to the police who gave evidence. Without exception they were allowed to have their statements in the witness box. They also had the advantage of legal representation and generally were treated much better. The one common theme that emerged from the survivors' experience of giving evidence was that they felt that they were on trial.

The Verdict

The selective use of evidence and the Coroner's slanted direction meant it should not have come as any surprise when the jury (after 90 days) returned a verdict of ACCIDENTAL DEATH against all the victims. However, the harsh reality of hearing those words uttered led to a highly emotional response from those present in court. Families and survivors were distraught. Some broke down and cried whilst others voiced their anger and disgust. The Coroner's response was to send the jury out and warn those present that when the jury returned if those present repeated the scene then he would 'clear the court' i.e. he was threatening to throw them out of court.

Generally the families felt little animosity towards the jury. The consensus of opinion was that given the coroner's direction they had very little choice. Some families had travelled on a daily basis to Sheffield but heard no evidence in relation to their loved one. The Tootles were one such family. John Glover commented in respect of the Tootle's:


I felt sorry for the Tootle family. I drove them to Sheffield and back all through the Inquests - yet they never heard their son's name [Peter] mentioned. They paid for representation, but what did they get?

Families like the Glovers and the Tootles were not going to give up. They owed too much to their dead sons memories. Together with other families they sought to find a way even when their lawyers told them there was nothing else that they could do.

Judicial Review

After the Inquests the families lawyers stated that there was nowhere else for them to go. The lawyers left at the same point as the money ran out. However, good people still exist. For six Hillsborough families, barrister Edward Fitzgerald (now Queens Counsellor) was that good person. He agreed to apply for leave to have the inquest verdict quashed. He was a breath of fresh air. He treated the families with a respect never before afforded them by the Steering Committee of solicitors. John Glover sums it up perfectly:


I felt as though we were in two different countries...two legal systems. In Sheffield we were told not to speak to the barrister and personally I didn't speak to my counsel who I'd paid money to, to represent my family. When we met Ed Fitzgerald [concerning the Judicial Review application] I couldn't believe the way he treated us...I was amazed. He gave us all the attention and really felt sympathy for us.

The application for leave to go for Judicial Review was successful in spite of the fact that it was out of time and the lawyers were not hopeful of it being successful. This in itself was a major victory particularly within the context of Hillsborough. It was the first 'victory' the families had ever had:


I'm overwhelmed. We are over the first hurdle after four years - somebody has listened to us.

John Glover one of the prime movers in the action was in hospital at the time - his illness being related to the stress and sheer physical toll of fighting for justice. He watched it on television:


I remember nearly jumping out of the bed when I saw it on television... I felt that was the turning point.

Sheila Coleman, who had worked on the detailed submission put to the court stated:


The decision is the result of the families' persistence against all odds. They had been told that they were wasting their time. And, remember, neither they nor their lawyers, have had the benefit of legal aid. Even if the verdicts are not eventually quashed, finally someone has listened to the families, and there is now a chance that all the evidence surrounding a disaster which resulted in 96 deaths will be heard in court. Either way there was sufficient concern in the judge's mind to allow the submission a full hearing.

It has to be acknowledged that this was a rare achievement won against considerable odds. It was a good day for the families. It was however, as good as it got. The case for Judicial Review was heard in the High Court during the first week of November 1993. Evidence was put before the two judges to indicate that the inquest had not been a thorough investigation into how the deceased met their deaths. The evidence was powerful. Crucial to the case was the evidence that people had died who could have been saved had they received appropriate treatment in time. The 3.15 cut off time was challenged as families had evidence most notably from forensic pathologist Dr. Iain West, that stated that the deceased could have lived beyond 3.15. This was most apparent in the case of Kevin Williams.

In any event all the evidence was to come to nothing. It was clear from the first day that the judges favoured those opposing the case. They made this very obvious by being very critical of the families barrister whilst at the same time being overly courteous to those representing the Coroner and the Ambulance Service. They were to conclude that far from being criticised for how he conducted the interviews, on the contrary the Coroner's behaviour (in their opinion) had been 'exemplary'. In respect of the 3.15 cut-off, Lord Justice McCowan stated:


I see no fault in the coroner in this matter. He made a full inquiry... In my judgement it would not be right to quash the verdicts and order a new inquest on the strength of these allegations made against the investigating police officers.

The 'allegations' to which he was referring was the evidence put forward in respect of Kevin Williams that West Midlands Police had suppressed the true evidence in relation to the circumstances leading to his death. Labelling hard evidence as 'allegations' was a convenient way to dismiss the facts.

Once again the families had been beaten. By now they were coming to realise that they were up against the system and that issues of truth and justice had little to do with the law. As John Glover stated:

...they'd already made up their minds. From day one they knew they were going to throw us out.

John highlighted the general indifference shown by the judges by the fact that they couldn't even get the facts right:


I couldn't believe my ears when the judge began his summing up. He actually stated that it had been a semi-final between Liverpool and Sheffield Wednesday. Given all the publicity surrounding Hillsborough, I was astonished that he couldn't even get the teams right...96 people had died and these judges didn't even know what teams were playing.

The period after this defeat was a very difficult one for the families. It seemed like there was nowhere for them to go. Many of them became very depressed. However, as hard as it was they would go on to fight another day, justice being their ultimate goal.

[Captain Kong]

The Stuart Smith Scrutiny

The Labour party when in opposition promised Hillsborough families that if and when they came to power they would order a new inquiry into the Hillsborough Disaster. This was set within the context of Jimmy McGoverns' Hillsborough drama documentary bringing to the attention of the wider public The miscarriage of justice that had occurred over Hillsborough, in particular in respect of the inquests on the deceased. Peter Kilfoyle, M.P. for Walton Liverpool called for a fresh inquiry. The then home secretary, Michael Howard, responded by stating that such a decision could not be made lightly and that he would have to be convinced that "it would be in the public interest".

When Labour came to power in May 1997, the new home secretary, Jack Straw, on meeting with bereaved families sympathised with them and promised them that there would be an independent judicial scrutiny to inquire into the disaster. He stated that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith would head the scrutiny. Whilst the immediate response of this was one of optimism from families, nevertheless a closer look at what was being ordered clearly showed the limitations of this 'scrutiny'. It was only to look at 'new evidence'. This effectively meant only evidence that had not been before the Taylor inquiry, the DPP, the Attorney General or South Yorkshire Police.

Families quickly became confused by this 'Scrutiny'. What precisely was a 'scrutiny'. The popular impression (certainly in the media) was that there was to be a new inquiry. In reality however, the 'scrutiny' had no clear remit and seemed to operate largely at the discretion of Stuart-Smith himself. Of prime importance was that any consideration or decisions made would be within the paradigm of 'public interest'.

The one positive aspect of the scrutiny was that it enabled families to have access for the first time to the files on the deceased that were held by South Yorkshire Police. Many of the files corroborated that which had long been speculated i.e. statements had been tampered with.

On the 6 October 1997, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith was at the Maritime Museum in Liverpool's Docklands area. He was there to listen to any new evidence from families. Any optimism families might have had was swiftly diminished when the judge set the tone for the proceedings by stating to one bereaved father:


Have you got a few of your people or are they like the liverpool fans, turn up at the last minute.

This comment outraged families and rightly so. Here was a senior member of the judiciary in Liverpool to give families the opportunity to put the record straight once and for all about Hillsborough, yet his opening comments referred to that old chestnut about Liverpool fans and lateness. Hindsight is wonderful thing but clearly families should, at that stage, have refused to co-operate with the scrutiny until Stuart-Smith had been replaced. In any event they chose to accept his apology for what he referred to as a ''flippant remark''. He was later to issue a statement regretting his ' off the cuff remark' which had not been intended to 'offend'.

At that meeting on the first day he defined precisely what he meant by 'new evidence'. Fresh evidence was:


Evidence which was not available or was not presented

To the previous inquires, courts or authorities.

Even if they accepted his apology for his insensitive comments, the families should have walked out when he defined the parameters of his investigation. In his opening statement he was effectively saying that the Taylor Inquiry had been thorough, the police had paid out damages and the inquests had been considered 'exemplary by the Court of Appeal. In other words he rubber stamped everything that had gone before. Yet at this stage families had access to statements (for the first time) which clearly showed that these previous investigations were flawed by virtue of the fact that statements had been altered. However, by the judges terms of reference this would not constitute new evidence and therefore would be inadmissable. Families, from this point on were in a no win situation. As difficult as it would have been they should have held out for an inquiry with wider terms of reference.

Stuart-Smith stayed in Liverpool for three days hearing individual evidence from sixteen families. Individual meetings were very formal. Stuart-Smith was accompanied by the secretary to the Scrutiny (Chris Bone) and another unnamed 'official'. The meetings were quite inquisitorial and hostile in spite of the coffee on offer. Families were confused and frustrated that evidence they brought to the judge which they had gleaned from the recently released body files was not considered relevant. Yes, it was new to them but it had been before the other investigations albeit in its doctored fashion and therefore fell outside the remit of the scrutiny.

Any idea that Stuart-Smith was approaching this scrutiny with objectivity was an illusion. No better example can be given than when Dave and Maureen Church met with the judge accompanied by Sheila Coleman. They outlined the issues relating specifically to their dead son, Gary, and then went on to point out that one of the Investigating officers from the West Midlands Police, Superintendent Stanley Beechey, was a former head of the (by now disbanded) notorious Serious Crime Squad. They told the judge that there was evidence that Beechey had fabricated evidence and altered statements prior to Hillsborough. That it had been proved in a miscarriage of justice case that Beechey lied and framed an innocent man. The response of the judge illustrated clearly that families would get nowhere with this judge. He commented that just because an officer had lied in one instance did not mean that he would lie in another case and therefore this fact was not relevant. When the Church's received the transcript of this meeting this comment by the judge was ommitted. The selective use of comments in transcribed meetings has been a common theme throughout the entire Hillsborough issue.

The 18 February 1998 saw families making the by now familiar trip to London. This time at the invitation of Jack Straw, who wanted to tell them first of the outcome of the Scrutiny, prior to him announcing it in the House of Commons. Ominously perhaps, he met them in room 13 in the House. He described Stuart-Smith's scrutiny as thorough and impartial however, he went on to say that nothing of any significance had emerged to warrant a new inquiry. Straw accepted Stuart-Smith's findings describing them as 'dispassionate' and 'objective'. Families were outraged.

The journey back from London was like so many before, having set out with optimism no matter how remote they were returning with heavy hearts, the truth once again having been denied them. All they had got from the meeting was a free copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's Scrutiny very quickly renamed the Stuart-Smith Stitch-up. On the train home families looked through the evidence and marvelled at how such evidence could be ignored. This was worse than if the evidence had not been available. Here it was, in black and white, the establishment sticking two fingers up to the families - they acknowledged that statements had been altered but effectively said 'so what?'. Political commentators should have made a note of Straw's attitude here for it was clearly a forerunner to how 'new labour' would be running things from that point on.

It is worth taking a look at Stuart-Smith's 'impartial' and 'objective' approach. The case of Kevin Williams serves as a good example. Anne Williams, mother of Kevin, had worked relentlessly to unearth the true facts surrounding her son's death. In the course of her efforts she secured meetings with two crucial witnesses-ironically both police officers who had attempted to save Kevin. Both officers informed her (in front of witnesses) that they had been pressured into making second statements by the West Midlands Police. One officer, Derek Bruder, was to refute this and say to Stuart-Smith that he had not been pressured there are still witnesses including his senior officer at the time to confirm that he stated he had been pressured. The other officer, Special Constable Debra Martin, however, has constantly maintained from the first time Anne Williams met her that the West Midlands Police harassed her by constantly visiting her and in the end she gave in under pressure and signed a second statement that had without reading it. The second statement was written by a WPC Julie Appleton who of course denied that any pressure had been exerted on Debra Martin and who stated that Martin had dictated the statement to her and had read it before she signed it. Debra Martin had consistently maintained that her first statement written shortly after the disaster is the true account and the second statement is a fiction of WPC Appleton's. In her first statement Debra Martin staes quite clearly that Kevin Williams opened his eyes in the gymnasium looked at her and said 'Mum'. This was at 4 p.m. on the day of the disaster. Was that the reason this had to be changed? Stuart-Smith chose to ignore the evidence of Debra Martin in favour of WPC Julie Appleton. He stated:


In my judgement Debra Martin cannot be regarded as a reliable witness. ...By contrast I found WPS Appleton a most impressive witness.

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? This one example illustrates perfectly how the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny did more harm than it ever did good. It served to consolidate the establishment view of events and discount as irrelevant any inconsistencies with that view. The report is a public document which can be viewed but the following statement (point 5 of the summary) supports this assertion:


...I have come to the clear conclusion that there is no basis upon which there should be a further Judicial Inquiry or a reopening of Lord Taylor's Inquiry. There is no basis for a renewed application to the Divisional Court or for the Attorney General to exercise his powers under the Coroners Act 1988. I do not consider that there is any material which should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Complaints Authority which might cause them to reconsider the decisions they have already taken. Nor do I consider that there is any justification for setting up any further inquiry into the performance of the emergency and hospital services. I have considered the circumstances in which alterations were made to some of the self-written statements of South Yorkshire Police officers, but I do not consider that there is any occasion for any further investigation.

To many the Stuart-Smith Scrutiny stands as a testament to the Labour Party's crude electioneering. Prior to their victory in May 1997, Labour politicians who had shown little interest in the Hillsborough issue realised it was a potential vote catcher. They promised so much. However, once in office, Jack Straw did no more as Home Secretary than to implement the policies of the previous Home Secretary (Michael Howard) in relation to Hillsborough. The Stuart-Scrutiny was a sop. It was not an inquiry as such. It was a convenient tool to further consolidate that which had gone before and to further enshrine in law one of the greatest injustices in Britain.

[Jim Brady]

Brian that's history and was overridden as far as I know.
HILLSBOROUGH INQUESTS.
The inquest started on Monday 31st March 2014.

Hillsborough Inquests

[Captain Kong]

It is obvious that it has been used as a Political Foot ball.
I do not think the Right Answer will ever be given. and if it is will anyone be sure it is the Right Answer.?
Inquests and detailed Reports should always be done as soon as possible after the incident. Otherwise, evidence can be lost or altered, memories fade and people die.

Brian

[Jim Brady]

As far as I'm aware Brian the families of the 96 are now satisfied that justice has been done.
Regards.
Jim.B.

[Red Lead Ted]

Jim, Brian, I have said enough on the tragedy, And all fact and up to date what is peeing me off is the length of time it is taking the CPS To decide who and if will face criminal charges amongst the attempted cover up by 2 police forces, As one lads father who was lost at Hillsborough said to me, They are waiting for us all to die. Terry.

[happy daze john in oz]

This report is no different from many others that come years after the event.

I often wonder if reports and equiries are deliberately left for years in the hope that some of those involved will be either gone or forgotten the facts.

The there are those, very often in cases of sexual misconduct, that came out of the woodwork years later when they think money may be involved.

[Captain Kong]

I assisted in the Inquiry of the Bowbelle/Marchioness Disaster. 51 Dead. in August 1989
after 12 years of Political wrangling and so on, No real satisfactory answers for the Relatives.
No compensation for the relatives only the cost of Funerals.
No one could explain why the hands of 22 dead had their hands amputated in the Mortuary.
Brian

[cappy]

I assisted in the Inquiry of the Bowbelle/Marchioness Disaster. 51 Dead. in August 1989
after 12 years of Political wrangling and so on, No real satisfactory answers for the Relatives.
No compensation for the relatives only the cost of Funerals.
No one could explain why the hands of 22 dead had their hands amputated in the Mortuary.
Brian

laurence dallaglio the rugby player had a sister lost on the bowbelle .....it is in his biography ...a good read ......brian did you when on the bowbelle ever come across the hopper of some size the flamingo ...she ran up and down the thames regularly .......she was the ex british defender in which i did 11 month indian coast.......long time ago sailed from the tyne dec 19 1959 regards cappy