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 claims the "sheer size" of the Leppings Lane crowd rather than the configuration of turnstiles was a major cause of congestion, asking: "What was the cause of that?"
He asks why so many spectators were arriving between 2.30pm and 3pm, and why the policing operation did not shepherd them into orderly queues.
Mr Beer says the prosecution case against Mr Mackrell "is removed from any decisions taken by him on the day itself" and that other people not in court "contributed to the chain of events" that led to the disaster.
"If it was the reality because more people were being diverted away from 11-16 to A to G ... why wasn't the congestion solely limited around the area around A to G?" he asks.
"The crush was across all turnstiles at Leppings Lane, even 1 to 10 that were as far removed as possible"
Mr Beer notes that gates A and B were opened by police, as well as C.
He says the police arrangements and number of fans arriving in a short period were different in 1988.
"It was the police's job to ensure those fans arrived in an orderly matter, police were responsible for crowd control outside the match," he says. "The impression of spectators attending both matches point to the more careful filtering of fans in 1988 and 1989, and this appears to have had a significant effect."
Mr Beer closes his speech by asking the jury to keep an open mind.
"The prosecution speech may have sounded simple, but in reality it is far more complicated," he adds.
The prosecutor, Richard Matthews QC, is calling the first witness to the stand - James Chumley.
Mr Matthews is to ask him about a 1981 football match at Hillsborough. Mr Chumley wrote a letter to Sheffield Wednesday football club following the match.
The letter, being shown to the jury, is addressed to the club's chairman Mr McGee on 14 April 1981. It was about a football match on 11 April between Tottenham Hotspur and Wolverhampton Wanderers.
Mr Chumley is alifelong Spurs fan and had attended the FA Cup semi-final between the two teams at Hillsborough stadium
Mr Chumley remembers parking his car at 2.45pm, shortly before kick-off. He said he got caught in "horrendous" traffic on the M1 and when they came off at the junction directed for Spurs supporters it was "nose to tail" all the way into Sheffield.
He says it was "certainly" traffic congestion as part of the match.
Mr Chumley's letter says the "problem really began after I had entered the ground, as along with many others I was prevented from taking my place on the terracing by your stewards and the police. I did not see any part of the match."
Asked by Mr Matthews about how he entered the stadium, he says he entered the Leppings Lane turnstiles. Shown a map of the entrance, Mr Chumley says he went through the right bank of turnstiles - which were lettered A to G on the day of the Hillsborough disaster.
He says his two friends with seating tickets went through different turnstiles, and that he and his brother went through to the right. Mr Chumley says he was stopped by police officers.