Hillsborough trial: David Duckenfield 'unfairly singled out' for manslaughter prosecution, defence claims
Prosecution says match commander's 'extraordinarily bad' series of failings led to fatal crush
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
David Duckenfield has been “unfairly singled out” for prosecution over the Hillsborough disaster, his defence lawyer has claimed.
The match commander “was not equipped with special powers to anticipate things that everybody else didn’t,” Benjamin Myers QC told a jury at Preston Crown Court.
He added: “It can hardly be fair to judge Mr Duckenfield by different standards from everyone else.
“The prosecution are blaming him for ... events that can’t be attributed to the fault of any persons in particular.
“What happened on 15 April 1989 was brought about by a combination of factors great and small, some with their roots in events years before and some that emerged in the hours and minutes before disaster struck.”
The prosecution had previously told the court that Mr Duckenfield’s “extraordinarily bad” failings as match commander was a substantial cause of the deaths.
Richard Matthews QC said it “required no hindsight” to realise the risk of a fatal crush in fenced pens at the Leppings Lane end of Hillsborough stadium.
Mr Duckenfield did not consider the consequences of an influx of thousands of Liverpool fans down a tunnel into the already overcrowded pens when he ordered a large gate to be opened to ease a separate crush outside the stadium, the court heard.
Prosecutors said he then failed to take action as the disaster was unfolding, with survivors and witnesses recalling how they shouted at police officers for help, and to be let out, but got no repsonse.
Excerpts of statements from officers were read showing that they were operating without orders from Mr Duckenfield, or the police control box, to try to manage crowds at the Leppings Lane end.
Even as the victims were being crushed to death, police communications played to the court suggested that some officers believed the incident to be a pitch invasion and responded accordingly.
When the match was stopped at 3.05pm, police triggered operation support, which was not a safety operation but a “contingency plan to deal with spontaneous disorder”.
Mr Matthews said: “No matter who else could have done better, done more, done things differently, Mr Duckenfield’s failures continued.
“Each flowed from his own decision making and fell squarely within his personal responsibility as match commander.
“Ultimately Mr Duckenfield failed in the most appalling manner to monitor what was happening in pens three and four, and to prevent or avert the inevitable consequence of the flow of many spectators into the central tunnel, crushing the life out of so many people.”
But speaking later on Thursday, Mr Myers told the jury a combination of factors “came together in catastrophic fashion … and to single out David Duckenfield is artificial and unfair”.
The defence lawyer said that the fencing that contributed to the disaster was common at football stadiums in the 1980s and that safety risks that may seem obvious now “were a fact of life in 1989”.
Mr Myers asked the jury to “keep in mind the danger of hindsight, the historical context and the possible unfairness of applying unreasonable standards to Mr Duckenfield from what is expected for others”.
Mr Myers pointed out that the prosecution has accepted that other people are at fault “but they are not accusing them of gross negligence manslaughter”.
He added: “You may be wondering how it can be fair to single out one man for prosecution when there are so many other people at fault – so are we. Looking back now, there may be things that could be done differently or better, and the same can be said for a good many people.”
Mr Myers said his client believes he was not negligent and “did his best”, and that “bad stadium design, bad planning, some aspects of crowd behaviour, some of police behaviour, and genuine human error” contributed to the disaster.
He reminded the jury that Mr Duckenfield is not representing South Yorkshire Police or any other agency, adding: “Our sympathy for others can never be a reason to convict another for events beyond his control or repsonsiblity.”
Mr Duckenfield, now 74, denies manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 victims.
There can be no prosecution over the death of the 96th victim, Tony Bland, as he died more than a year and a day after his injuries were caused.
Graham Mackrell, Sheffield Wednesday’s former club secretary, denies health and safety offences.
The trial continues.
Read our live coverage below:
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
Mr Myers uses the crowd density of pens 3 and 4 as an example. He asks whether Mr Duckenfield was the only officer with a view of the terrace and whether any other officer raised an issue about the density in those pens before the crush happened.
"Who else identified the things that David Duckenfield is criticised so relentlessly now for not identifying them?" he asks the jury, asking them not to judge him "by a different standard to everyone else and assess him by information he did not have".
Mr Myers is showing the jury a view of the West Terrace towards the police control box during the disaster that clearly shows overcrowding in the pens
By comparison, he shows the view from the police control box from the other end and says it was different and that there were "other tasks" and events going on
Mr Myers asks the jury to "keep in mind the danger of hindsight, the historical context and the possible unfairness of applying unreasonable standards to Mr Duckenfield from what is expected for others"
The indictment says that Mr Duckenfield's breach of duty amounts to gross negligence.
Mr Myers says the law stipulates that there must be "gross" negligence, rather than just negligence.
"It's one thing to say he is partly to blame for what happened or could have done better, it's entirely another to say it was so bad ... that he should be criminalised," the lawyer adds
Mr Myers points out that the prosecution has accepted that other people are at fault "but they are not accusing them of gross negligence manslaughter".
"You may be wondering how it can be fair to single out one man for prosecution when there are so many other people at fault," he adds. "We submit that so are we."
The prosecution says Mr Duckenfield's failure was "extraordinary" but they have to prove it, Mr Myers says
He said looking at the issue fairly would mean to compare all the other failings and see whether the defendant is "acceptable"
"It is Mr Duckenfield's case that he wasn't negligent and did his best in very difficult circumstances. With hindsight, he did the best he could," Mr Myers said
Mr Myers said his client "had no experience of anything like this" and had been assured that all was prepared for the match.
"We say it is wrong and unfair to single him out when there were so many other factors and causes at work in this tragedy," he adds.
Mr Myers says Mr Duckenfield is being singled out unfairly and many different people and factors played a part in the tragedy
"The defence case is that by virtue of bad stadium design, bad planning, some aspects of crowd behaviour, some of police behaviour, and genuine human error this tragedy happened," he adds
Mr Myers asks the jury to ask "how much" of the factors leading to the disaster "had nothing to do wtih Mr Duckenfield"
"The prosecution are blaming him for ... events that can't be attributed to the fault of any persons in particular," he adds. "What happened on 15 April 1989 was brough't about by a combination of factors great and small, some with their roots in events years before and some that emerged int he hours and minutes before disaster struck"
He said a combination of factors "came together in catastrophic fashion ...and to single out David Duckenfield is artificial and unfair"
Mr Myers says the charges faced by Mr Mackrell are different in gravity and only Mr Duckenfield has been singled out for manslaughter
Mr Myers asks the jury to consider why 1989 went "so badly wrong when 1988 didn't", with the same fixture played between the same teams in the same stadium