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 a lot was left to senior officers in charge of the match, and "discretion" on the approach to the stadium, filling the pens, and whether the tunnel to pens 3 and 4 might be closed off when they were full.
"These are all matters that explain how the disaster happened and we ask you to bear in mind the extent to which the informal approach adopted by Ch Sup Mole ... was too dependent on him being at the helm to be picked up by others."
Mr Beer says the "role and control" exerted over planning by Ch Supt Mole should be considered for Mr Mackrell, and the approach to policing crowds arriving at Leppings Lane.
He says that when Mr Mackrell came into his post, the ultimate decisions on how fans would get safely into Hillsborough were left to Ch Supt Mole, who made the decision to delay kick-off at the 1987 FA Cup semi-final.
He also decided to put all Liverpool fans through Leppings Lane in 1988.
Mr Beer says Sheffield Wednesday had "no choice" but to go with Ch Supt Mole's requirements to repeat the segregation in 1989 if they wanted the match to take place with police consent.
He says the policing strategy for incoming supporters in 1989 was "signficantly different" to 1988 and asked the jury to consider how Mr Mackrell was being "told what to do".
An FA report on a 1987 match described Hillsborough stadium as "modern by comparison with others" and said a retired police officer was "the full time security officer at the stadium".
it also remarked on the "very friendly co-operative relationship between police and the club" and the "layout, maintenance and control at this stadium is of a high order."
An FA report on the semi-final between Nottingham Forest and Liverpool in 1988 was also compliementary of segregation between fans and police and club liason, Mr Beer says.
"The lively and alert club secretary [Mr Mackrell] and the local police force work well together," it added
Mr Beer asks the jury to have the context in mind when considering allegations against Mr Mackrell.
Mr Beer says that the prosecution alleges that in 1988 there were 13 turnstiles for standing tickets in the West Terraces and in 1989 fans were expected to go through A to G, and that there was no evidence police were notified or consulted about the change.
Count 2 of the indictment accuses Mr Mackrell of failing to agree the methods of entry by 21 days before the match - the condition under the safety certificate. Mr Beer says Mr Duckenfield had not taken up the role of match commander at that point, so the club would have had to reach agreement with the head of South Yorkshire Police or Ch Supt Mole. Mr Beer says the prosecution must prove that
Mr Beer says the prosecution must also prove that there was "no agreement whatsoever reached between Sheffield Wednesday and Ch Supt Mole" or the chief constable regarding the methods of admission.
"It's not enough for them to simply say there is no evidence the police were notified or consulted on the configuration of the turnstiles," he adds. Both Ch Supt Mole and the chief constable at the time have both died and cannot give evidence on the subject, he says.
Mr Beer says that none of Ch Supt Mole's planning meetings in the lead-up to the match were minuted or documented and "it may be that some documentation has been lost or destroyed".
He says it means that not finding an agreement in writing does not mean one was never reached.
Mr Beer says Mr Mackrell "is a man of good character".
The third count accuses him of failing to take reasonable care for the safety of spectators in respect of admission arrangements/turnstiles and the drawing up of contingency plans in the event of overcrowding outside the stadium.
Mr Beer says Mr Mackrell denies the failure
Mr Beer says it was "entirely feasible" for more than 10,000 fans to enter through Leppings Lane turnstiles in the three hours they were open before the match, especially given that people were just handing in tickets rather than buying them
"It will be for you to consider whether awareness of the allocation of seven turnstiles for standing supporters was forseeable as a risk to fans' safety," he added