Download the document (1.26 MB) - Hillsborough Independent Panel
Download the document (1.26 MB) - Hillsborough Independent Panel
Download the document (1.26 MB) - Hillsborough Independent Panel
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
(24) The Resumed Inquest<br />
In September of 1990 a decision was reached by <strong>the</strong> Director of Public<br />
Prosecutions not to prosecute anybody in respect of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Hillsborough</strong> disaster.<br />
Thereafter, <strong>the</strong> Coroner decided that <strong>the</strong> adjourned inquests should be<br />
resumed and completed with a full inquiry into <strong>the</strong> question of "how".<br />
However he indicated that he would impose a cut-off point of 3.15pm on <strong>the</strong><br />
inquest and would hear no evidence as to events after that point. He chose<br />
this cut-off point because that was <strong>the</strong> time that <strong>the</strong> first ambulance arrived<br />
on <strong>the</strong> pitch. The effect of <strong>the</strong> decision to impose a cut-off point at 3.15pm<br />
was as follows so far as it affected your Memorialists:<br />
(i) I It ruled out any inquiry into <strong>the</strong> adequacy of <strong>the</strong> response of <strong>the</strong><br />
emergency services and effectively meant that <strong>the</strong>re was no inquiry<br />
into <strong>the</strong> question of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> deaths of <strong>the</strong> individual deceased<br />
might have been prevented by more prompt and adequate medical<br />
intervention.<br />
(ii) It proceeded on <strong>the</strong> basis that all <strong>the</strong> deaths of those involved in <strong>the</strong><br />
disaster had become inevitable by <strong>the</strong> time <strong>the</strong>y had sustained <strong>the</strong><br />
crush injuries <strong>the</strong>y suffered before or up to 3.04pm or <strong>the</strong>reabouts,<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>re was ample evidence to suggest o<strong>the</strong>rwise<br />
which <strong>the</strong> jury should properly have been permitted to consider.<br />
-34-