Hillsborough victims' families criticise CPS over handling of case
Bereaved Hillsborough families have criticised the Crown Prosecution Service and called for a review of how it conducted the case against David Duckenfield, the former South Yorkshire police chief superintendent acquitted on Thursday of manslaughter.
Throughout the first trial at Preston crown court, which ended on 3 April with the jury unable to reach a verdict, and the retrial which began on 7 October and related to only 95 of the people who died, relatives of many of the 96 people killed at the 1989 FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest urged the CPS to improve its conduct of the prosecution.The CPS confirmed on Friday that £1.8m had been paid in fees to Richard Matthews QC, the lead prosecutor, Christine Agnew QC, and two junior barristers, since the start of their involvement in the case. The CPS does not calculate internal costs for time spent by their own staff. The Duckenfield prosecution was led by Adrian Roberts, the head of the special crimes and counter-terrorism unit, and overseen by the director of legal services, Sue Hemming.Operation Resolve, the police investigation into the disaster, set up in 2012 following the report by the Hillsborough Independent Panel, has confirmed its total cost of £60m. Following Duckenfield’s acquittal, the only criminal conviction relating to the disaster itself is a safety offence by the then Sheffield Wednesday club secretary Graham Mackrell, for which he was fined £6,500.
Jenni Hicks, whose two daughters Sarah, then 19, and Vicki, 15, were killed in the crush at Hillsborough, criticised the CPS barristers for failing to sufficiently challenge the defence and the conclusions by the judge, Sir Peter Openshaw. Many families were exasperated by the lack of resistance to allegations that people attending the semi-final misbehaved, which were dismissed by the jury at the inquests in 2016.“That was my big objection,” Hicks said. “It felt to the families that there were so many obvious and necessary points to make, but there wasn’t enough fight by the CPS. It is also a real flaw in the system that the victims in a criminal case do not have a right to participate in a case with funded legal representation, so we were reduced to spectators. The CPS need to seriously look at its conduct of this case.”In the first trial, Matthews did not advance as part of his case a suggestion by Duckenfield that Liverpool supporters had forced down a gate and rushed in. In his conclusion, Openshaw suggested that Duckenfield did not lie at all, and that it had “no significance in the case at all and you should put it out of your mind.”
Hicks said she wrote to Hemming after the first trial, asking her to replace the lead barristers, and challenge Openshaw’s continued presiding over the case. Other families called on the CPS to improve its performance and to challenge Openshaw. Many believe and have voiced concerns to the CPS that overall the case was not prosecuted strongly enough.Responding to the criticism, Hemming said in a statement: “We appointed an expert team
of experienced specialist prosecutors and paralegals, led by two very well respected, top-ranking QCs.Every effort was made to build a robust case for prosecution.“Gross negligence manslaughter is one of the most difficult charges to prove and this required significant technical expertise. We recognise sometimes the decisions taken by counsel are not easy to understand but we met with families every step of the way and took their comments on board.“As with every major prosecution, we will also hold an internal post-case review. Our thoughts remain with everybody affected by the disaster and we will meet with families to discuss further if they wish to do so.”