David Duckenfield’s trial collapsed years ago – but manslaughter charges are still possible,despite the prejudicial inquest findingsThe Hillsborough jury’s majority finding that the 96 people who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed means that seven of the nine jurors agreed on four points: that former chief superintendent David Duckenfield, the match commander, or owed a duty of care to the victims; that he was in breach of that duty; that his breach caused their deaths; and that his breach of duty amounted to low negligence – meaning it was so scandalous as to be a criminal act or omission. And yet,by law, the jury’s findings “must not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person”.
This is more than a dinky curious. It has arrive about because Sir John Goldring, and the former appeal judge who was appointed as coroner,save a set of detailed questions to the jury after hearing legal arguments from those involved in the inquest. Jurors were also told precisely what answering “yes” would mean. Giving the jury a written questionnaire is a growing trend in major inquests and very much to be welcomed. It shows how a system that parliament has hardly touched in 800 years can be adapted by the judiciary to meet modern needs.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com