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

(Reuters)

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.”

David Duckenfield, matchday police commander at the Hillsborough football stadium disaster, arrives at court in Preston on Monday (AFP/Getty)

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

[17 January 2019 15:59 · Lizzie Dearden]

Mr Myers says the prosecution says the answer is Mr Duckenfield, but have acknowledged changes to the turnstile arrangements and police crowd management. He asks the jury to look for points of difference between 1988 and 1989 as they hear more evidence

"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," he adds.

"Mr Duckenfield is not on trial as a representative of the police in general or South Yorkshire Police in particular" or other agencies. "He is on trial as David Duckenfield and no-one else is held responsible or accused, this prosecution is more personal than that."

[17 January 2019 16:00 · Lizzie Dearden]

Mr Myers says he is not defending the police on that day, "we're here to defend one man because he has been singled out"

He emphasises that Mr Duckenfield cannot be held responsible for the failings of other police officers or authorities

[17 January 2019 16:02 · Lizzie Dearden]

Mr Myers says it will be a "natural human reaction to look for someone to blame" after seeing distressing images and feeling "natural sympathy" towards the victims and their relatives

He warns against holding people responsible for things "beyond their responsible" because of distress, or sympathy or anger

[17 January 2019 16:03 · Lizzie Dearden]

He asks them to distinguish between Mr Duckenfield's responsibilities and those of others

"Our sympathy for others can never be a reason to convict another for events beyond his control or repsonsiblity," Mr Myers adds.

[17 January 2019 16:04 · Lizzie Dearden]

The hearing is now ending for the day and will start again at 10.00am, when our live coverage will resume