Hillsborough trial: Stadium’s safety officer was ‘accountant with no formal training’, court told
Prosecution accuses Graham Mackrell of ‘shrugging off responsibility’ for getting Liverpool fans safely into stadium
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
The official in charge of safety at Hillsborough stadium was a former accountant with no health and safety training, a court has heard
A defence lawyer representing former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell said standards for the role were “very different” in the 1980s.
Jason Beer QC told Preston Crown Court: “Mr Mackrell was not an expert in issues of structural engineering, his background and training was in accountancy before he served at two smaller clubs.”
The lawyer said that health and safty management had “moved on a lot” in the past three decades and Mr Mackrell’s role did not include “what we would currently understand” as the expertise needed.
Mr Beer said the government-issued Green Guide made first mention of a “safety officer” in 1986 and there was no formal training course or qualification for the post.
The lawyer said decisions affecting the safety of Hillsborough stadium, such as the installation of fenced pens where the overcrowding of supporters led to the death of 96 victims, had already been taken before Mr Mackrell became club secretary in December 1986.
Earlier this week, the jury was shown a letter from the following year where he informed a Sheffield City Council official his “duties encompass those of a safety officer” and that he possessed the most recent edition of the Green Guide on safety.
The prosecution said Mr Mackrell “contributed to some very specific failures that fell squarely within his job” by failing to take reasonable care of how Liverpool fans entered the stadium and making contingency plans for overcrowding at turnstiles.
Richard Matthews QC said Mr Mackrell “simply shrugged off all responsibility for both those matters, about which he had accepted personal responsibility”.
Mr Mackrell, now 69, denies contravening the stadium’s safety certificate and a health and safety offence.
His defence lawyer said the prosecution would have to prove allegations that Mr Mackrell did not agree an entry plan with South Yorkshire Police as required, claiming that record-keeping by relevant officers was poor.
Mr Beer said the defendant was of “good character” and was not being prosecuted over any actions on the day of the disaster on 15 April 1989.
“Things can look ever so simple after they have happened,” he added. “These charges are not to be viewed with the eyes of 2019, but what was known before 1989 and the standards then.”
Mr Mackrell joined Sheffield Wednesday from Luton Town in 1986, and “inherited” Hillsborough stadium’s layout and safety arrangements, he added.
The jury was told that the club’s relationships with a firm of structural engineers, the council and police were already well established.
Mr Beer suggested that the head of the Eastwoods structural engineering firm – who has since died – exercised “control over anything to do with the safety of the ground” and “dominated” an advisory group.
The lawyer said the same structural engineer also declined to change the capacity calculations for Hillsborough after alterations at the Leppings Lane end.
Mr Beer alleged that David Duckenfield’s predecessor as match commander “dominated the planning and preparations for football matches, especially FA Cup semi-finals” and had charge of how spectators approached Hillsborough stadium and entered standing terraces.
He said former Chief Superintendent Mole, who has also died, was “instrumental” to the planning of how Liverpool fans would enter the ground on the day of the disaster and left his post just weeks before.
Mr Beer claimed it was “entirely feasible” for all Liverpool fans to pass through the Leppings Lane turnstiles, where a crush caused police to open large exit gates.
He told the jury police had previously ensured fans arrived in an “orderly manner” by controlling their approach to the stadium, and funelling them to specific terrace entrances once inside.
A supporter who attended a previous FA Cup semi-final in 1981 where police opened gates on perimeter fencing to let fans escape a crush told the court he was prevented from getting to the terraces by police officers.
James Chumley said an officer told him Leppings Lane was the “worst end” and he thought the capacity had been overstated, even before the West Stand was split into pens.
On the day of the disaster, thousands of fans flooded through opened gates and down a sloped tunnel that fed into two fenced pens, where 94 victims were crushed to death by the pressure. Two other supporters later died from their injuries.
Mr Duckenfield, now 74, denies manslaughter by gross negligence. The trial continues.
Read live coverage from the court below
Please allow a moment for the live blog to load
Mr Beer says police discussed the matter internally and on 1 December 1986 a memo from Insp Calvert to the Ch Supt of F Division, Mr Mole.
It says: "As far as I am aware with one exception, Hillsborough meets the criteria set out in the Act." The exception was with a roof not involved in the disaster.
The memo was agreed by senior officers and the memo was sent to Ch Supt Mole, and eventually to the council.
A letter dated 6 January 1987 from South Yorkshire Police to the council said it was ultimately agreed by Superintendent Stuart.
"Both stadia, so far as the police are concerned, meet our requirements under the 1975 legislation," it said. "Co-operation by both clubs is very satisfactory."
Mr Beer says the fire service raised some issues about fire safety but "none of the issues raised have any reference to the turnstiles or layout of Leppings Lane", its terraces or pens.
The responses were collected in a letter to Sheffield Wednesday FC on 22 April 1987, when Mr Mackrell had taken up his post.
Mr Beer asks the jury to consider the role of Dr Wilfred Eastwood, an "eminent structural engineer" who founded a consultancy used by Sheffield Wednesday.
He provided advice on the safe capacity for Hillsborough and "was there from the start" for the safety certificate in 1979, the lawyer says, and had advised the club in previous years.
"While many people came and went in the intervening year, Dr Eastwood remained a constant advising the club," Mr Beer says. "The club placed enormous reliance on Dr Eastwood ... he became probably the most prominent issue as far as safety was concerned."
Mr Beer says he "tended to dominante" decision on stadium development and the advisory group, "he even dominated his own employees at his firm"
Mr Beer says Dr Eastwood, who has died, was "over-confident" in his expertise and "overbearing".
"That becomes important when stepping into Mr Mackrell's shoes in 1986," he adds. "Dr Eastwood's experience outweighed anyone who was there at the time."
Mr Beer is showing the jury a handwritten memo from Sheffield Wednesday's office manager Sharon Lane to Eastwoods in 1987 asking "has any account been taken for alterations done on Leppings Lane over last few seasons" and whether capacity figures were still correct.
Another reply by John Strange at Eastwoods said: "Dr Eastwood says leave the capacity at Leppings Lane as it is, providing police have gates under West Stand open so that people can distribute throughout West Stand evenly."
Sheffield Wednesday was pitching to host FA Cup matches at the time.
Mr Beer says that "Dr Eastwood is no longer with us, or he might be standing in this court. The reality is that the decisions taken up to the semi-final were all taken in the context that the stadium was safe" in Dr Eastwood's estimations and by regulatory authority approval.
Mr Beer also asks the jury to consider the role by Ch Supt Mole, who was a "pivotal figure in terms of the Hillsborough disaster" after having command at matches there for years.
Ch Supt Mole was transferred from his role weeks for the disaster but had been "instrumental" in drawing up the police operational order for the map.
Mr Beer questions whether his removal could have played a role in the disaster by removing his experience, or whether "his approach to policing football matches was a disaster waiting to happen".
Mr Beer says the "find your own level" policy leaving spectators to their own devices in standing terraces and pens was Ch Supt Mole's.
"What transpires was little by documented briefings or operational orders to explain to offices or successors as to how overcrowding could be avoided at Leppings Lane," he adds, saying supporters will give evidence on differences between policing of entry to the ground in 1988 and 1989.
Mr Beer says there was a form of cordoning and filtering of supporters approaching the Leppings Lane end to regulate the arrival of fans at the blue perimeter gates in 1988 to create "orderly queues" at turnstiles.
"In 1989 there was no such approach," he adds. "There is simply no documentation to clarify the police approach in this regard."