Download the document (11.04 MB) - Hillsborough Independent Panel

(c)
That the exit gates in the perimeter fences were adequate for
their intended purpose.
(d)
That the Safety Certificate did make adequate provision for
stewarding.
The deployment of stewards and their proper areas
of responsibility were matters for the Second Defendants in
consultation with the First Defendant.
(e)
That meetings of the Officer Working Party were regularly convened
(f)
That the provision of signposting to control the directional
flow of spectators within the stadium was a matter for the Second
Defendants in consultation with the First Defendant.
Signposting
which might be suitable for one event such as a normal football
league match where supporters of the "away” team might
conveniently be accommodated in only one pen might not be suitable
for another event such as a semi-final game at which many more
spectators might be expected to attend.
It is the responsibility
of the ground managers (the Second Defendants) to decide in
respect of each event the nature of the signposting controlling
the directional flow of spectators within the ground that is
best suited to that particular event.
(g)
The decision to remove barrier 144 was based upon the
recommendation of the Fourth Defendants who in turn had
considered and approved a suggestion advanced by the First
Defendant, with regard to the removal of the said barrier on the
grounds of crowd safety.
It was not reasonably foreseeable by the
Third Defendants that such an influx of spectators upon an already
-3-