This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/25/hillsborough-inquest-jury-can-return-majority-unlawful-killing-decision

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Hillsborough jury can return majority decision on unlawful killing question Hillsborough jury can return majority decision on unlawful killing question
(35 minutes later)
The jury in the Hillsborough inquests has been told it can return a majority decision on whether the 96 victims were unlawfully killed. The jury at the new inquests into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster has been told it can return a majority decision on whether the 96 people who died were unlawfully killed.
The coroner, Sir John Goldring, explained to the jury of six women and three men that he could accept a decision of 7-2 or 8-1 on the question if they could not all agree. The coroner, Sir John Goldring, explained to the jury of six women and three men that he could accept a decision of 7-2 or 8-1 on that question if they could not agree on a unanimous verdict.
The jury forewoman has previously indicated to the court in Warrington that unanimous decisions had already been made on every other question they were posed. Goldring has told the jurors that to find the 96 people were unlawfully killed, they must be satisfied that the South Yorkshire police chief superintendent in command at the match, David Duckenfield, “was responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence of those 96 people”.
The jury has been told to answer a general questionnaire of 14 questions as well as record the time and cause of death for each of the Liverpool fans who died in the disaster on 15 April 1989. For gross negligence to be proved, Goldring told the jury that it had to be sure Duckenfield breached his duty of care to the people attending the semi-final, and that his breach “was so bad, having regard to the risk of death involved, as in your view to amount to a criminal act or omission”.
These include questions about the police planning before the game, stadium safety, events on the day, the emergency services response to the disaster and a question about whether the fans were unlawfully killed. The jury forewoman told Goldring last week that jurors had reached unanimous decisions on all 13 other questions they have to answer about how the 96 people died.
Question six asks: “Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed?” These questions ask if there were failures that caused or contributed to the deaths by South Yorkshire police officers, the South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service, Sheffield Wednesday – whose home ground is Hillsborough – the club’s engineers Eastwood and partners, and Sheffield city council, which was responsible for certifying that the ground met safety requirements.
The hearings have been going on for more than two years, with the jury having heard months of evidence from more than 800 witnesses. The jury also has a question Goldring has said is “controversial”, about whether the behaviour of Liverpool supporters at the approach to the Leppings Lane turnstiles may have caused or contributed to the dangerous situation that developed there.
The jury heard that after congestion developed outside the turnstiles, Duckenfield ordered a large exit gate to be opened to allow 2,000 people access to the ground quickly.
He did not close off a tunnel leading to the central “pens” of the terrace, where the crush then happened, leading to the 96 deaths. The questions include asking whether supporters should have been directed away from the central tunnel when the exit gate was open, as well as whether the 96 were unlawfully killed.