First, to be clear, I did have the basis of the ruling clearly explained to me before I sent my tweet. So it was not quite as you suggested.
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Second, I am not speaking without direct knowledge. I was present in the courtroom at this trial and at the previous one in Preston, as well as the Second Inquest. I have followed proceedings VERY closely.
Näytä tämä ketju -
What I can say about these trials, without fear of contradiction from anyone in the legal profession, is that the families’ experience of them has been utterly brutal.
Näytä tämä ketju -
One of the hardest things for them to endure at both trials was defence lawyers reintroducing slurs about fan misbehaviour - even though they were comprehensively dismissed by the Second Inquest.pic.twitter.com/BXbdF8mVU6
Näytä tämä ketju -
Can you provide any justification for both judges allowing claims about fan behaviour to be reintroduced at both trials without supporting evidence nor reference to the fact that the longest legal process in recent history had already disproved them?
Näytä tämä ketju -
Furthermore, can you in any way justify how one of the QCs involved in this most recent trial went straight out into the media yesterday and repeated these lies? Will you condemn his behaviour?pic.twitter.com/d5jr7eHUBv
Näytä tämä ketju -
Finally, let me address directly your main point - the ruling itself and my reaction to it. The advice I have received is that there is an arguable case that the 1989 public inquiry was a “course of public justice”.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Let me support that with a direct quote from a QC: “If you have a process set up by Government, a Lord Justice of Appeal as Chair, all participants represented by legal teams, live witnesses questioned in hearings, it looks and smells like a ‘course of public justice’ to me.”
Näytä tämä ketju -
I am further advised that it was clear from the outset that the original statements were taken in anticipation of the first Inquest and potential criminal proceedings.
Näytä tämä ketju -
So, given all this, am I not entitled to express the view that, after 32 years of the country seeking resolution on all this, the public interest lay more in letting this proceed to a jury rather than throwing it out at this stage - even if you hold a different view?
Näytä tämä ketju -
That said, my comment about this being a disgrace and disrespectful was not solely aimed at the ruling but the whole process and all the legal actors - including the CPS - who collectively participated in this shambles. The families deserved much better and my words stand.
Näytä tämä ketju -
But beyond that, what message does this ruling send out if left unchallenged? That it is absolutely fine for police officers and solicitors to withhold and amend evidence provided to a non-statutory inquiry?
Näytä tämä ketju -
So, while I respect the fact that you disagree with me, this is the background to my tweet. You may not like my profession but my experience of yours is that there are too many people in your rarefied world who do not think enough about the way it treats ordinary people.
Näytä tämä ketju -
Failing to reach a resolution after 32 years is all the proof needed that major reform is required. As a minimum, we need two things: first, parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests where public bodies are involved; second, a legal duty of candour on officials.
Näytä tämä ketju -
This was the basis of the Hillsborough Bill which I presented to Parliament in 2016. While we may disagree on yesterday’s events, can we at least agree that passing this into law would learn the right lessons from Hillsborough and even up the scales of justice a little? ENDS
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.