Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Duckinfield Jury Unable To Agree On Verdict
49 Answers
https:/
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Not surprised. The CPS have asked for a retrial. Hopefully they won’t succeed, to pursue this serves nobody.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no - yes I agree
the lesson which we dont need is - that if you keep something secret or covered up for long enough
forty year is good
then justice will never be done
you go on with your medals and knighthoods and pensions and point at someone else and say - it's him!
something we never needed to re-learn
regretfully I think also the jury said - oh but we have to convict someone !
so the co-defendant got it for - eating a ham sandwich or whatever trumped up charge they had kknocked up
not a great day for British Justice
the lesson which we dont need is - that if you keep something secret or covered up for long enough
forty year is good
then justice will never be done
you go on with your medals and knighthoods and pensions and point at someone else and say - it's him!
something we never needed to re-learn
regretfully I think also the jury said - oh but we have to convict someone !
so the co-defendant got it for - eating a ham sandwich or whatever trumped up charge they had kknocked up
not a great day for British Justice
um - no
criminal trials are disconnected from civil actions
and there is a pretty huge corpus the law students have to learn about this anyway
https:/
White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others [1998] UKHL 45; [1999] 2 AC 455; [1999] 1 All ER 1
criminal trials are disconnected from civil actions
and there is a pretty huge corpus the law students have to learn about this anyway
https:/
White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire and Others [1998] UKHL 45; [1999] 2 AC 455; [1999] 1 All ER 1
Duckenfield was completely ill-suited to the role of Match Commander having been given that responsibility close to the game.His pre-match briefing to officers was sadly deficient reflecting his inexperience.
That said,this must have been an incredibly difficult case for the jurors and I am not surprised at today's verdict.
That said,this must have been an incredibly difficult case for the jurors and I am not surprised at today's verdict.
EDDIE - // Its all over Money ! The relatives were hoping for a massive payout if there was a 'Guilty' verdict !! //
I would suggest it is actually all over justice - those responsible for the deaths of innocent people being brought to justice, if it is appropriate.
I doubt that money is a major factor in the minds of any of the relatives at this time.
I would suggest it is actually all over justice - those responsible for the deaths of innocent people being brought to justice, if it is appropriate.
I doubt that money is a major factor in the minds of any of the relatives at this time.
//those responsible for the deaths of innocent people being brought to justice, if it is appropriate. //
Interesting to note today that some relatives don't want Duckenfield to be retried.I suppose to some,there has to be a limit in prolonging their agony.For other relatives,the opposite is true where they fought tooth and nail for decades pursuing justice.We all have our own limits.
Interesting to note today that some relatives don't want Duckenfield to be retried.I suppose to some,there has to be a limit in prolonging their agony.For other relatives,the opposite is true where they fought tooth and nail for decades pursuing justice.We all have our own limits.
"...and I am not surprised at today's verdict."
Actually I am.
I think I said when the trial began that I would be extremely surprised if Mr Duckenfield was convicted. What's surprised me is that I fully expected him to be acquitted. Today's lack of verdict means that at least three and possibly as many as nine jurors wanted to convict him.
People make mistakes when doing their jobs. Unfortunately for those in some occupations making a mistake can have tragic consequences. But that doesn't make them guilty of serious criminal offences.
I agree with Mr Duckenfield's lawyer that the prosecution against him was "breathtakingly unfair". My view is that Mr Duckenfield was made a scapegoat for what were serious institutional failings. I don't believe he was negligent - let alone grossly negligent - on that day. He did the best he could, making decisions very quickly as the tragic situation unfolded. It's easy to sit back in comfortable Chambers pontificating over what should and should not have been done. He didn't have that luxury.
Actually I am.
I think I said when the trial began that I would be extremely surprised if Mr Duckenfield was convicted. What's surprised me is that I fully expected him to be acquitted. Today's lack of verdict means that at least three and possibly as many as nine jurors wanted to convict him.
People make mistakes when doing their jobs. Unfortunately for those in some occupations making a mistake can have tragic consequences. But that doesn't make them guilty of serious criminal offences.
I agree with Mr Duckenfield's lawyer that the prosecution against him was "breathtakingly unfair". My view is that Mr Duckenfield was made a scapegoat for what were serious institutional failings. I don't believe he was negligent - let alone grossly negligent - on that day. He did the best he could, making decisions very quickly as the tragic situation unfolded. It's easy to sit back in comfortable Chambers pontificating over what should and should not have been done. He didn't have that luxury.
//He did the best he could, making decisions very quickly as the tragic situation unfolded//
He also made no decisions whilst the situation unfolded.He had fellow colleagues bellowing at him for instructions and he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
Some of his decisions were made before the problems started including his terrible pre-match briefing to officers in the stands who were left staggered.
Prof.Phil Scraton's book 'Hillsborough-The Truth' is an essential read.It is seriously thought provoking.
He also made no decisions whilst the situation unfolded.He had fellow colleagues bellowing at him for instructions and he was like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
Some of his decisions were made before the problems started including his terrible pre-match briefing to officers in the stands who were left staggered.
Prof.Phil Scraton's book 'Hillsborough-The Truth' is an essential read.It is seriously thought provoking.
// People make mistakes when doing their jobs. Unfortunately making a mistake can have tragic consequences. But that doesn't make them guilty of serious criminal offences. //
is a surprising statement from a lawyer or judge as it ignores the whole of the complex field of manslaughter by gross negligence which was the charge he was facing
not every case of negligence may lead to manslaughter charges . But that is not the same as - no case of negligence leads to criminal charges.
the hillsborough relatives have been screwed comptehensively for forty years
this is not a day to celebrate
the people entrusted with finding out what happened lied about what had happened - and as NJ says - it is no ones fault. Great. My arriss
is a surprising statement from a lawyer or judge as it ignores the whole of the complex field of manslaughter by gross negligence which was the charge he was facing
not every case of negligence may lead to manslaughter charges . But that is not the same as - no case of negligence leads to criminal charges.
the hillsborough relatives have been screwed comptehensively for forty years
this is not a day to celebrate
the people entrusted with finding out what happened lied about what had happened - and as NJ says - it is no ones fault. Great. My arriss
Yes I am aware of the principles behind Manslaughter Gross Negligence. From what I've read about Hillsborough (most of it, admittedly many years ago) I do not believe Mr Duckenfield was criminally negligent. He made some mistakes, he didn't do some things he should have, he did do some things that he shouldn't have. People do that all the time.
The jury sat through almost three months of meticulously prepared evidence. It was - or should have been - presented to them in a way that demonstrated why the prosecution believed Mr Duckenfield was guilty of manslaughter. They learned more about the event than we would ever know and - dare I say it - they probably heard more detail than is portrayed in Prof. Scraton's book. But at least three of them were not prepared to convict him.
I'm not suggesting nobody is to blame for the tragedy. I'm suggesting Mr Duckenfield is not guilty of manslaughter.
The jury sat through almost three months of meticulously prepared evidence. It was - or should have been - presented to them in a way that demonstrated why the prosecution believed Mr Duckenfield was guilty of manslaughter. They learned more about the event than we would ever know and - dare I say it - they probably heard more detail than is portrayed in Prof. Scraton's book. But at least three of them were not prepared to convict him.
I'm not suggesting nobody is to blame for the tragedy. I'm suggesting Mr Duckenfield is not guilty of manslaughter.
I've often wondered when watching programmes about this: was it Duckenfield who gave the order to open the gates (captured on CCTV) 'to ease congestion', through which hundreds of those outside surged into the ground? Did all those who did surge through those gates have tickets for the match - because if they didn't, then surely they are as culpable as anyone in the tragedy that ensued.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.