News2 mins ago
Duckenfield Found Not Guilty Of Manslaughter.
48 Answers
Police Press Conference due son.How do you feel about this.
https:/
https:/
Answers
//...unless you think due process involved lying, and cover up// That happened after the event, Peter. Mr Duckenfield'
20:28 Thu 28th Nov 2019
// due process has been observed//
iike yeah - a delay of thirty years is acceptable due process
ho hum, normal evening on AB !
but, thirty year later, unless there is a confession and sort of DNA and a smoking gun, you are not really going to get a contested case off the ground
the bereaved relative recalled the lies - that the scousers had urinated on the bodies and so on
and correctly said due process had NOT been observed
unless you think due process involved lying, and cover up
( one might say it is not due process but that is not to say it still occurs) they hve been badly served by the System and have a right to expect something more
iike yeah - a delay of thirty years is acceptable due process
ho hum, normal evening on AB !
but, thirty year later, unless there is a confession and sort of DNA and a smoking gun, you are not really going to get a contested case off the ground
the bereaved relative recalled the lies - that the scousers had urinated on the bodies and so on
and correctly said due process had NOT been observed
unless you think due process involved lying, and cover up
( one might say it is not due process but that is not to say it still occurs) they hve been badly served by the System and have a right to expect something more
no that is it
double jeopardy and all that
there are some pretty high hoops to overturn a not-guilty and have another go
like significant new evidence NOT available at the trial
and the permit of the Att gen both of which dont grow on trees
I am not sure even that a confession of D tomorrow - O I did it! I did it!
would count as significant new evidence
the rule has been around for a long time
interest rei publicae ut sit finis ad litem
as Boris might WELL say !
you have got it to call it a day sometime
in plain english
( and lots of Abers can quip - "whoopsit what den?")
double jeopardy and all that
there are some pretty high hoops to overturn a not-guilty and have another go
like significant new evidence NOT available at the trial
and the permit of the Att gen both of which dont grow on trees
I am not sure even that a confession of D tomorrow - O I did it! I did it!
would count as significant new evidence
the rule has been around for a long time
interest rei publicae ut sit finis ad litem
as Boris might WELL say !
you have got it to call it a day sometime
in plain english
( and lots of Abers can quip - "whoopsit what den?")
//...unless you think due process involved lying, and cover up//
That happened after the event, Peter. Mr Duckenfield's trial was concerned with what happened in the run up to the tragedy and his part in it. What followed was of no concern to that court.
The bereaved families are understandably disappointed. They suggest that "the system is flawed". I disagree. The system in this country when dealing with such serious criminal allegations is a jury trial. "Due process" has been followed. In fact it's been followed three times. Mr Duckenfield has had to face the same charges three times, with the two previous outings resulting in a hung jury. The victims' families seem unable to grasp that the prosecution has had three goes at convicting Mr Duckenfield and has failed to do so. He has now been formally acquitted and I cannot see where they have to go. It is not possible for the prosecution to appeal a Not Guilty verdict from the Crown Court. I do not believe a Judicial Review (JR) is possible. For decision in a lower court to be subject to a JR the matter has to be "within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court." The High Court can ordinarily supervise inferior courts and tribunals through judicial review. But the law specifically states that this supervision does not extend to “matters relating to trial on indictment” in the Crown Court.
As painful as it must be, I think the bereaved families have reached the end of the road.
That happened after the event, Peter. Mr Duckenfield's trial was concerned with what happened in the run up to the tragedy and his part in it. What followed was of no concern to that court.
The bereaved families are understandably disappointed. They suggest that "the system is flawed". I disagree. The system in this country when dealing with such serious criminal allegations is a jury trial. "Due process" has been followed. In fact it's been followed three times. Mr Duckenfield has had to face the same charges three times, with the two previous outings resulting in a hung jury. The victims' families seem unable to grasp that the prosecution has had three goes at convicting Mr Duckenfield and has failed to do so. He has now been formally acquitted and I cannot see where they have to go. It is not possible for the prosecution to appeal a Not Guilty verdict from the Crown Court. I do not believe a Judicial Review (JR) is possible. For decision in a lower court to be subject to a JR the matter has to be "within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court." The High Court can ordinarily supervise inferior courts and tribunals through judicial review. But the law specifically states that this supervision does not extend to “matters relating to trial on indictment” in the Crown Court.
As painful as it must be, I think the bereaved families have reached the end of the road.
// That happened after the event, Peter.//
o god I am well aware there were short periods of due process- which was Very Satisfactory to the trial judge - and there was some due process in 2017 but not much in the immediate aftermath or it wouldnt have come to this.
£65m later, the bereaved families have got nothing(*)
and I am well aware the lawyers amongst us will comment juridically: oh yes yes - the system is Meant to work like that!
(*) I err- thirty years of unrelieved anguish
o god I am well aware there were short periods of due process- which was Very Satisfactory to the trial judge - and there was some due process in 2017 but not much in the immediate aftermath or it wouldnt have come to this.
£65m later, the bereaved families have got nothing(*)
and I am well aware the lawyers amongst us will comment juridically: oh yes yes - the system is Meant to work like that!
(*) I err- thirty years of unrelieved anguish
I think it's the correct verdict. Very sad and upsetting for the families, but I can't see how one man can be held responsible for everything that happened.
Those of us who attended football matches in the 50's, 60's and 70's will know what it's like to have been on the terraces and squashed in like sardines; pressure from the back pushing everyone onto the barriers; people falling over or being forced into the wall at the front. Things like that were not the fault of any officials. It was caused by innoccuous enthusiasm and excitement and I would suggest there is an element of that in the cause of this tragedy.
As I have said before on here, me and my wife were amongst the first people to put flowers in the goal area at the Kop end of Anfield on Monday 17th April 1989. They were on the goal line. I'll never forget the sounds of tragedy and misery; the shuffling of feet on the shale track round the pitch; the rustling of cellophane on the floral tributes being carried by people; the sobbing of the fans as they queued to place their tributes; the sobbing of fans just stood in disbelief at the Kop End; the sound of the Liverpool traffic in the distance couldn't drown out the sounds of sorrow. Tragic and unforgettable. RIP The 96.
Those of us who attended football matches in the 50's, 60's and 70's will know what it's like to have been on the terraces and squashed in like sardines; pressure from the back pushing everyone onto the barriers; people falling over or being forced into the wall at the front. Things like that were not the fault of any officials. It was caused by innoccuous enthusiasm and excitement and I would suggest there is an element of that in the cause of this tragedy.
As I have said before on here, me and my wife were amongst the first people to put flowers in the goal area at the Kop end of Anfield on Monday 17th April 1989. They were on the goal line. I'll never forget the sounds of tragedy and misery; the shuffling of feet on the shale track round the pitch; the rustling of cellophane on the floral tributes being carried by people; the sobbing of the fans as they queued to place their tributes; the sobbing of fans just stood in disbelief at the Kop End; the sound of the Liverpool traffic in the distance couldn't drown out the sounds of sorrow. Tragic and unforgettable. RIP The 96.
Arrods //I thought it was stated there was to be a further trial on a separate issue in the New Year. (Can't recall what it was.)\\.
I heard that too on Sky News but like you I can't remember what it was. I thought it was hinted that the bereaved families would have a chance to be involved in some way.
I heard that too on Sky News but like you I can't remember what it was. I thought it was hinted that the bereaved families would have a chance to be involved in some way.
System seems flawed to me. One part decides that someone unlawfully killed the victims, no other part finds anyone guilty of that; implying the first bit got it wrong. Had the first bit been more specific as to who the culprit was and why, or alternatively not led the families on to think they'd find an individual to blame, the situation would have been very different.
There was no 'someone' in any of the rulings. The second one (which i think you're referencing) concluded that the supporters were unlawfully killed due to grossly negligent failures by police and ambulance services to fulfill their duty of care. The inquests also found that the design of the stadium contributed to the crush.
//So with such widespread contributing factors how can it be any sensible definition of an unlawful killing ?//
In my view it should not have been. The original coroner's verdict ruled accidental death. A subsequent private prosecution (brought by the bereaved) resulted in a hung jury and the trial judge ordered that no re-trial should be permitted.
Whilst Mr Duckenfield made a tragic mistake, the causes of the deaths were widespread with crowd behaviour, police behaviour
In my view it should not have been. The original coroner's verdict ruled accidental death. A subsequent private prosecution (brought by the bereaved) resulted in a hung jury and the trial judge ordered that no re-trial should be permitted.
Whilst Mr Duckenfield made a tragic mistake, the causes of the deaths were widespread with crowd behaviour, police behaviour
[to continue]
police behaviour, stadium design and faults on the part of the stadium's owners and safety officials. To single out one person as solely responsible for the deaths was, in my view, truly reprehensible, especially when closure has taken thirty years.
I said during the earlier trial that I would be extremely surprise if Mr Duckenfield was convicted. He went to work that day with the best of intentions of doing what was a demanding and difficult job as well as he could. He fell short of the mark but he alone was not to blame. A suitable penalty would be demotion, no further promotion or a reduction in his level of pay. But to lock up a 75 year old man for what would have been a lengthy period? Nah. I don't want to live in a country where people are imprisoned for making a mistake whilst trying their best to do their job.
police behaviour, stadium design and faults on the part of the stadium's owners and safety officials. To single out one person as solely responsible for the deaths was, in my view, truly reprehensible, especially when closure has taken thirty years.
I said during the earlier trial that I would be extremely surprise if Mr Duckenfield was convicted. He went to work that day with the best of intentions of doing what was a demanding and difficult job as well as he could. He fell short of the mark but he alone was not to blame. A suitable penalty would be demotion, no further promotion or a reduction in his level of pay. But to lock up a 75 year old man for what would have been a lengthy period? Nah. I don't want to live in a country where people are imprisoned for making a mistake whilst trying their best to do their job.
judge; "to single out one person as solely responsible for the deaths was, in my view, truly reprehensible, especially when closure has taken thirty years. " - bang on as usual judge. They just wanted someone to hang draw and quarter so they could avert their gaze from the true cause of this incident.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul5 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News7 mins ago
Society & Culture9 mins ago
Crosswords11 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.