|
Post by wagsastokie on May 26, 2021 12:33:37 GMT
Apparently the judge stopped the trial because the evidence and statements were taken for the previous Taylor public Inquiry in 1990 and not the criminal trial so he ruled them inadmissible. Just wow. Somebody very high up in the CPS should be falling on there swords for this Roughly up to 200 million spent on trying to achieve convictions The result fuck all The potential guilty free the innocent frustrated And what will happen the CPS will continue to spunk money on high profile cases Whilst thousands of people are denied justice
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 26, 2021 13:16:44 GMT
The cover up of the cover up.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on May 26, 2021 13:56:48 GMT
Shameful shambles! I don't know enough about the law to comment on the judgement on admissibility of evidence but if it is correct the head of CPS and several others should have already resigned for both wasting public money and failing to deliver justice.
|
|
|
Post by scfc75 on May 26, 2021 13:59:19 GMT
What a load of old fucking shit
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 26, 2021 14:04:27 GMT
Wow. Allowed to go unchallenged by Adrian Chiles who then apologised half an hour later.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 26, 2021 14:08:04 GMT
Shameful shambles! I don't know enough about the law to comment on the judgement on admissibility of evidence but if it is correct the head of CPS and several others should have already resigned for both wasting public money and failing to deliver justice. I saw on the News that there is a head of steam building to legislate so that the Police (and similar organisations) would have a duty to give details at an early stage when it becomes apparent that evidence has been tampered with. Because no one can be compelled to incriminate themselves you can't force anyone who (as in this case) changes someone else's witness statement, to admit to doing so. But you could change the law so that their employer (in this case the Police) were obliged to tell the Justice Department if it appeared from internal enquiries that witness statements had been altered. If the law was changed, it would not help the Hillsborough victims, but it would make it less likely that such a fiasco would happen in future. The whole thing has been a f**k up from start to finish. I do hope that the politicians who refused earlier calls (years ago) to look again at the fiasco of the first inquest, are brought to book - but somehow I doubt there is the political will to do so.
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on May 26, 2021 14:26:17 GMT
Wow. Allowed to go unchallenged by Adrian Chiles who then apologised half an hour later....... You could make sub list as long as your arm under Stadium design and Stadium safety.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on May 26, 2021 15:29:15 GMT
Wow. Allowed to go unchallenged by Adrian Chiles who then apologised half an hour later. Shame on Chiles for allowing him to talk such shit unchallenged. He apparently apologised half an hour later, but it's not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on May 26, 2021 15:34:03 GMT
Wow. Allowed to go unchallenged by Adrian Chiles who then apologised half an hour later. Shame on Chiles for allowing him to talk such shit unchallenged. He apparently apologised half an hour later, but it's not good enough. Yeah the apology is in the bottom tweet, he sounded upset and right he should it was pathetic of him not to intervene.........
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 26, 2021 16:27:27 GMT
"no case to answer" is lawyer speak. It does not mean that his client has been proved innocent. It means that a judge has decreed that, for whatever reason, the evidence which may have suggested guilt is ruled to be inadmissible.
Many (probably most) lawyers, when their client has had a case thrown out on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence like to suggest this is as good as being "proved" innocent - it isn't - it is simply that he hasn't been found to be guilty. The lawyer is giving his client's point of view which, I suppose, is what he sees as his job. Where the lawyer overstepped the mark was when he suggested that the Liverpool fans outside the stadium caused the disaster. The second inquest stated this was rubbish and that the disaster was caused by failings of the Police and the stadium management and that the fans in the pens who died were unlawfully killed.
Hopefully the Law Society for England will reprimand Goldberg, who had no right to condemn the behaviour of those Liverpool fans who had been found by the second inquest to be not at fault.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2021 18:02:51 GMT
"no case to answer" is lawyer speak. It does not mean that his client has been proved innocent. It means that a judge has decreed that, for whatever reason, the evidence which may have suggested guilt is ruled to be inadmissible. Many (probably most) lawyers, when their client has had a case thrown out on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence like to suggest this is as good as being "proved" innocent - it isn't - it is simply that he hasn't been found to be guilty. The lawyer is giving his client's point of view which, I suppose, is what he sees as his job. Where the lawyer overstepped the mark was when he suggested that the Liverpool fans outside the stadium caused the disaster. The second inquest stated this was rubbish and that the disaster was caused by failings of the Police and the stadium management and that the fans in the pens who died were unlawfully killed.Hopefully the Law Society for England will reprimand Goldberg, who had no right to condemn the behaviour of those Liverpool fans who had been found by the second inquest to be not at fault. No case to answer is in some respects lawyer speak. It is where at the close of the prosecutions case the defence make an application to the Judge or Magistrates that the Court has not heard sufficient evidence that a jury properly directed could convict on. If the Court find, on the balance of probabilities, there is sufficient evidence then the trial proceeds. If it does not the application succeeds, and if so, the Defendants are acquitted (found innocent!) The leading authority is R v Galbraith. Here the Judge has concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the statements were made and amended in relation to a public inquiry. There was no suggestion of any criminal investigation to which those statements related, therefore there was no public justice (criminal matter) for the amended statements to pervert. It has nothing to do with the admissibility of the statements but the context in which they were made / amemded. It is a grave error of judgment by the CPS to prosecute when they would have known from day 1 what the Defence would argue. The CPS could state a case to the High Court if they think the Judge erred in law. I'd be surprised if they didn't.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on May 26, 2021 19:36:35 GMT
Fucking shameful.
|
|
|
Post by GoBoks on May 26, 2021 21:20:48 GMT
"no case to answer" is lawyer speak. It does not mean that his client has been proved innocent. It means that a judge has decreed that, for whatever reason, the evidence which may have suggested guilt is ruled to be inadmissible. Many (probably most) lawyers, when their client has had a case thrown out on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence like to suggest this is as good as being "proved" innocent - it isn't - it is simply that he hasn't been found to be guilty. The lawyer is giving his client's point of view which, I suppose, is what he sees as his job. Where the lawyer overstepped the mark was when he suggested that the Liverpool fans outside the stadium caused the disaster. The second inquest stated this was rubbish and that the disaster was caused by failings of the Police and the stadium management and that the fans in the pens who died were unlawfully killed.Hopefully the Law Society for England will reprimand Goldberg, who had no right to condemn the behaviour of those Liverpool fans who had been found by the second inquest to be not at fault. A shameful event from start to finish. However, and I know less than nothing about English law, isn't everyone presumed innocent until proven guilty? If so, and the court cannot find him guilty, doesn't the presumption of innocence survive? If so, for a lawyer to say "my client has been found to be innocent" (because they were not found guilty) is surely not false and therefore does not meet the standard required for a reprimand?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 26, 2021 21:31:52 GMT
"no case to answer" is lawyer speak. It does not mean that his client has been proved innocent. It means that a judge has decreed that, for whatever reason, the evidence which may have suggested guilt is ruled to be inadmissible. Many (probably most) lawyers, when their client has had a case thrown out on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence like to suggest this is as good as being "proved" innocent - it isn't - it is simply that he hasn't been found to be guilty. The lawyer is giving his client's point of view which, I suppose, is what he sees as his job. Where the lawyer overstepped the mark was when he suggested that the Liverpool fans outside the stadium caused the disaster. The second inquest stated this was rubbish and that the disaster was caused by failings of the Police and the stadium management and that the fans in the pens who died were unlawfully killed.Hopefully the Law Society for England will reprimand Goldberg, who had no right to condemn the behaviour of those Liverpool fans who had been found by the second inquest to be not at fault. A shameful event from start to finish. However, and I know less than nothing about English law, isn't everyone presumed innocent until proven guilty? If so, and the court cannot find him guilty, doesn't the presumption of innocence survive? If so, for a lawyer to say "my client has been found to be innocent" (because they were not found guilty) is surely not false and therefore does not meet the standard required for a reprimand? Read what I said again. I never said the solicitor should be reprimanded for saying his client was innocent (that is his job) - he should (I think) be reprimanded for condemning (what he said was) the disgusting behaviour of the Liverpool fans locked outside which contributed/caused the disaster. That myth has been found not to be true by the second inquest. Had fans not arrived late the disaster would probably not have happened. But there is no evidence that arriving late was their fault, there had been severe traffic problems en route. And the job of the police in the event that large numbers of fans in a major event are still outside approaching kick off is to delay kick off and to announce that kick off has been delayed for an hour or whatever interval is needed. If that had been done the fans would have filtered in with no problems. I've arrived late at games where kick off has been delayed and the delay meant there were no crowd problems.
|
|
|
Post by bighatbilly on May 26, 2021 22:15:02 GMT
Whilst we can argue the subtleties of English law and what's admissible evidence - it's difficult to avoid the question of what's morally right here - it's almost certainly NOT this outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2021 22:19:09 GMT
Law and morality never mix well
|
|
|
Post by generationex on May 26, 2021 23:53:59 GMT
It should be remembered that this prosecution did not fail because statements were not altered. The court did not decide that those lies were innocently made. Or were not intended to benefit the police or defendants.
It failed because the legal status of the statements was unclear.
The hypocrisy of former police officers allowing their lawyers to chirrup over what they - and the right-wing press - would call ‘a technicality’ whilst spitting venom about the law only defending criminals - is appalling.
The tories can change the law in relation to statements taken for the purposes of any enquiry. They could (and should) ensure police have the same duty to provide truthful accounts as they would in criminal proceedings. If they don’t every enquiry is pointless.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 27, 2021 1:44:22 GMT
If the deaths had been inflicted on people at the Henley Regatta I bet the loopholes exploited in this case would suddenly become filled.
Don't dismiss this because of any pre existing prejudice against scousers. The overbearing issue in all this is class. Most of the 96 weren't destined to get justice because of the accents and surnames.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2021 4:57:07 GMT
It should be remembered that this prosecution did not fail because statements were not altered. The court did not decide that those lies were innocently made. Or were not intended to benefit the police or defendants. It failed because the legal status of the statements was unclear. The hypocrisy of former police officers allowing their lawyers to chirrup over what they - and the right-wing press - would call ‘a technicality’ whilst spitting venom about the law only defending criminals - is appalling. The tories can change the law in relation to statements taken for the purposes of any enquiry. They could (and should) ensure police have the same duty to provide truthful accounts as they would in criminal proceedings. If they don’t every enquiry is pointless. There doesn't need to be any change in the law at all. If people are made aware that any statements provided during a public inquiry are provided with contemplation of potential criminal proceedings then that's fine. Good luck getting anyone to provide a statement in a public inquiry though.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 4, 2021 9:09:31 GMT
This explains the verdict in some detail from a liverpool supporting season ticket holder who represented one of the defendents.....
|
|
|
Post by podolipotter on Jun 4, 2021 11:30:35 GMT
Having been caught up in a Liverpool supporter surge at Vale Park when supporters pushed down a frail chicken wire fence to gain access to Vale Park, I was initially excited, then, when losing foot contact with the ground and being carried forward, anxious, nervous and finally relieved to have missed the concrete wall to my left and gaining a foothold on the terrace. My point here being that I had lost control of where I wished to be. Certainly one person died that day and some were injured, and the direct cause of this was supporters breaking down a very flimsy and ineffective barrier. Why was this barrier so ineffective? My point here is that over-excitement ignores safety, and do any football supporters never get over-excited on a big-match day? Of course they are excited. I was there because I wanted to see the big-club Liverpool, thrash the Vale.
I know that Hillsborough was very different and much more calamitous in that the lack of safety measures funnelled excited, eager supporters through a very narrow channel and into an already packed enclosure. At a given point, they should never have been allowed into that tunnel. Who was responsible for that? The stadium designers? Had they ever pre-trialled the possibility of far too many entering that tunnel and cage? Who unlocked the safety gate to the tunnel? and indeed, was there a safety gate at the entrance to the tunnel? Who designed the cage-fencing in the enclosure itself and why were there far too few emergency gates on to the pitch at the front of the enclosure? Indeed, were there any safety gates there? Many difficult questions on such a horrendous day.
I don't blame Liverpool supporters whatsoever. Furthermore, to lay blame on any one individual would be wrong, for no-one deliberately set out to kill that day and I often weep in remembrance of those who died when just trying to watch their own beloved football team play. Patently, many lessons have been learned and - one would very much hope - been actioned and put into place. I would hope that families of the victims might see some solace in the widespread call for more safety and the fervent wish for no more similar disasters. Liverpool FC are my second team - after Stoke City FC, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 4, 2021 11:45:21 GMT
This explains the verdict in some detail from a liverpool supporting season ticket holder who represented one of the defendents..... It would have helped if one of the QCs (not this one) representing one of the other defendants, hadn't stood on the steps of the court the other week and dredged up the myth (conclusively disproved by the second inquest) that a major cause of the disaster was the "disgusting behaviour" of Liverpool fans who arrived late (through no fault of their own) very close to kick off. At the end of the day the saying that "justice delayed is justice denied" is as true as it ever was. The second inquest did a fine job in confirming that the 96 were unlawfully killed, but getting justice so many years after the event was always going to be difficult if not impossible. The biggest scandal of all was probably not the flawed first inquest and enquiry, nor the actions of senior police that day, nor the media attempts led by the Sun to lay the blame on the Liverpool fans. The biggest scandal was that successive Home Secretaries and Justice Ministers of successive governments refused to order a second enquiry or inquest for years, when it was quite clear to most people that the original inquest and enquiry had been fatally flawed. The simple facts that: a) the original coroner imposed an arbitrary cut off time on match day, beyond which he would not hear evidence and b) The first enquiry was not set up on a fully judicial (i.e. legal) basis should have sounded warning bells to anyone who didn't have a closed mind.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Jun 4, 2021 13:48:01 GMT
This explains the verdict in some detail from a liverpool supporting season ticket holder who represented one of the defendents..... It would have helped if one of the QCs (not this one) representing one of the other defendants, hadn't stood on the steps of the court the other week and dredged up the myth (conclusively disproved by the second inquest) that a major cause of the disaster was the "disgusting behaviour" of Liverpool fans who arrived late (through no fault of their own) very close to kick off. At the end of the day the saying that "justice delayed is justice denied" is as true as it ever was. The second inquest did a fine job in confirming that the 96 were unlawfully killed, but getting justice so many years after the event was always going to be difficult if not impossible. The biggest scandal of all was probably not the flawed first inquest and enquiry, nor the actions of senior police that day, nor the media attempts led by the Sun to lay the blame on the Liverpool fans. The biggest scandal was that successive Home Secretaries and Justice Ministers of successive governments refused to order a second enquiry or inquest for years, when it was quite clear to most people that the original inquest and enquiry had been fatally flawed. The simple facts that: a) the original coroner imposed an arbitrary cut off time on match day, beyond which he would not hear evidence and b) The first enquiry was not set up on a fully judicial (i.e. legal) basis should have sounded warning bells to anyone who didn't have a closed mind. I posted the article as my impression without looking into it was the families had been let down again, reading the article it becomes clear there was never any realistic chance of a conviction over this supposed cover up and the families should not have had their hopes raised over this. The events of the day itself arent in question on that day and before lots of people made small and massive mistakes which culminated in 96 people losing their lives.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jun 4, 2021 15:40:52 GMT
It would have helped if one of the QCs (not this one) representing one of the other defendants, hadn't stood on the steps of the court the other week and dredged up the myth (conclusively disproved by the second inquest) that a major cause of the disaster was the "disgusting behaviour" of Liverpool fans who arrived late (through no fault of their own) very close to kick off. At the end of the day the saying that "justice delayed is justice denied" is as true as it ever was. The second inquest did a fine job in confirming that the 96 were unlawfully killed, but getting justice so many years after the event was always going to be difficult if not impossible. The biggest scandal of all was probably not the flawed first inquest and enquiry, nor the actions of senior police that day, nor the media attempts led by the Sun to lay the blame on the Liverpool fans. The biggest scandal was that successive Home Secretaries and Justice Ministers of successive governments refused to order a second enquiry or inquest for years, when it was quite clear to most people that the original inquest and enquiry had been fatally flawed. The simple facts that: a) the original coroner imposed an arbitrary cut off time on match day, beyond which he would not hear evidence and b) The first enquiry was not set up on a fully judicial (i.e. legal) basis should have sounded warning bells to anyone who didn't have a closed mind. I posted the article as my impression without looking into it was the families had been let down again, reading the article it becomes clear there was never any realistic chance of a conviction over this supposed cover up and the families should not have had their hopes raised over this. The events of the day itself arent in question on that day and before lots of people made small and massive mistakes which culminated in 96 people losing their lives. Yes, I agree with you. I was simply making the point that the other QC's inflammatory remarks last week repeating the myth blaming Liverpool fans for the disaster were inevitably going to fan the flames. Todays compensation announcements by the Police are evidence that police have admitted that their mistakes led to the disaster and repeating falsehoods about Liverpool fans was unprofessional - I hope the Bar Council investigate the QC's remarks.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jun 4, 2021 22:51:46 GMT
|
|