IN 1HL HIGH COUR1 OI JUS1ICL

DIVISIONAL COUR1
AND IN 1HL MA11LR OI AN APPLICA1ION
UNDLR S.J3 OI 1HL CORONLRS AC1 J988
1O QUASH 1HL INQULS1S IN1O 1HL DLA1HS OI 1HL INDIVIDUALS
WHO DILD AS A CONSLQULNCL OI
1HL DISAS1LR A1 1HL HILLSBOROUGH S1ADIUM ON JS APRIL J989
HM A11ORNLY GLNLRAL
Claimant
-and -
HM CORONLR IOR SOU1H YORKSHIRL (WLS1 DIS1RIC1)
Iirst Defendant
HM CORONLR IOR WLS1 YORKSHIRL (WLS1 DIS1RIC1)
Second Defendant
SPLAKING NO1L
1. May it please your Lordships I appear with Mr Glasson.
2. Miss Alison lewitt appears or the lirst Deendant, the Sheield Coroner,
3. 1he Second Deendant is not represented today but has iled an
acknowledgment o serice indicating that he does not contest the
application.
4. As your Lordships know there are many interested parties to this
application, most importantly the amilies o those who died in the
lillsborough Stadium disaster.
5. Mr Michael Mansield QC appears with Mr Roche |Mr \illiams and Mr
Straw| or 63 o those amilies.
6. Mr Peter \eatherby QC appears or Mrs \illiams, whose Memorial or an
application in relation to the death o her son Kein I granted at the same
time as I lodged this application with the Court. Mr \eatherby also
represents a number o other amilies.
. Ms liona Barton QC appears or the South \orkshire Police.
8. My Lords, the Application that I am making or the inquests into the
deaths o the 96 people who died as a consequence o the distaster at the
lillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 is supported by the Deendants as
well as all o the interested parties that are represented here today. 1hose
that are not represented hae indicated that they do not oppose the
Application and indeed some hae indicated that they expressly support it.
9. Nonetheless, gien the intense public interest in this case it is right, with
your Lordships` permission, that I set out, in summary orm at least, the
basis or the Application that I am making.
10. 1he horriic eents on 15 April 1989 at the lillsborough Stadium are well
known. 1hey were seen by millions on teleision as the tragedy unolded
and by many o the spectators at the stadium itsel.
11. Lord Justice 1aylor, who conducted a remarkably expeditious and
thorough inquiry into the tragedy, set out the eents o the day in his
Interim Report, published just a ew months ater the tragedy in August
1989:
81. lrom 3 o'clock, gates 3 and 4 had been open and remained so. At
irst, ans had walked or staggered out winded and aint. But the inal
surge at 3.04 pm, and the struggle to reach the open gates, caused a
horrendous blockage o bodies. 1he dead, the dying and the desperate
became interwoen in the sump at the ront o the pens, especially by
the gates. 1hose with strength let clambered oer others submerged in
the human heap and tried to climb out oer the ence. 1hey were now
helped by police and other ans who hauled them up and oer.
Numbers o ans were climbing oer the radial ences into adjacent
pens. At the back, many were hauled up into the west stand to reliee
the pressure.
82. 1he steps rom the sump at gateways 3 and 4 were so congested
with bodies lie and dead that each had to be prised rom the pile by
the police. Initially, no oicer took eectie charge. A number o
indiidual oicers and ans worked rantically to ree those trapped but
the gateways were so narrow that only two or three could get at the
entwined bodies. \illing hands got in one another's way. More oicers
arried rom the gymnasium and elsewhere in the ground. Many used
their own initiatie to help those laid out on the pitch, to assist in
getting others oer the encing and to comort the distressed. But
some stood in groups near the perimeter ence not knowing what to
do. 1hey had been summoned in response to what was thought to be a
threat to public order. \hat they ound was a horriic scene o carnage
and some young oicers were shocked into impotence by what they
saw.
83. A pile o dead bodies lay and grew outside gate 3. Lxtending
urther and urther on to the pitch, the injured were laid down and
attempts made to reie them. More and more walking suriors
looded out on to the pitch as the players let. 1he scene was emotie
and chaotic as well as gruesome.`
1
12. In the months and years that ollowed, the eents that led to that tragedy
hae been the subject o numerous inestigations and inquiries. As the
lillsborough Panel commented v terv. of tire. to.t, tbe itt.borovgb ai.a.ter i.
tbe vo.t .eriov. croraretatea tragea, at a .ort. erevt iv ritaiv. t i. at.o tbe vo.t
ivre.tigatea ava .tvaiea.
2
13. My Lords, the Application today is made as a consequence o the
lillsborough Panel's report that was published on 12 September 2012. It
is a remarkable document, the product o a reiew o oer 450,000 pages
o documentation rom 84 organisations and indiiduals, in addition to
audio-isual material
3
.
14. In the immediate weeks ollowing its publication, I careully studied the
indings o the lillsborough Panel with a iew to whether it was right to
exercise my powers under section 13 o the Coroners Act.
15. On 16 October 2012 I announced to Parliament my intention to make an
application or the inquests o those who died as a consequence o the
lillsborough disaster to be quashed and new inquests ordered. At the
1
Page 15 o the Panel Report, tab A
2
Paragraph 1.6, page 2 o the Panel Report, tab A
3
Page 382 o the Panel Report, tab A
same time I indicated that I would immediately start the process o
consultation with the amilies as to their iews on whether such an
application should be made in their particular case as well as with the
deendants and other interested parties.
16. Soon ater my announcement to Parliament, I commissioned urther
expert analysis o the new medical eidence which orms the central plank
o this Application. Consequently Dr Kirkup, the medical member o the
Panel and a ormer Associate Chie Medical Oicer at the Department o
lealth, as well as Proessor Jack Crane, a leading orensic pathologist and
the state pathologist or Northern Ireland, hae each submitted detailed
reports in support o this Application.
1. I am most grateul to all those amilies and parties that hae co-operated
ully with my Oice in the consultation process that ollowed my
announcement. Lawyers or the amilies saw the Application in drat as
did the Deendants. 1heir prompt co-operation has ensured that when the
Application was lodged with the Court last Monday it was possible to ile it
on the basis that all the amilies as well as both o the deendants
supported it. linally, I should express my thanks, as well as the thanks o
all o those present, to the Court or listing the Application so quickly.
18. 1he report o the lillsborough Panel undermined a critical assumption
that underpinned all o the inestigations into the disaster and, most
importantly, that had underpinned the inquests. 1he Panel`s access to all
o the releant records and expert analysis o the post mortem eidence
conirmed that the notion o a single, unarying and rapid pattern o death
in all cases was unsustainable. Some o those who died did so ater a
signiicant period o unconsciousness during which they might hae been
able to be resuscitated, or conersely might hae succumbed to a new
eent such as inappropriate positioning. Consequently, the response o the
emergency serices was not inestigated in any detail by the inquests. As
the Panel noted, 1be aocvvevt. ai.cto.ea .bor tbat, cov.iaerea atovg.iae tbe
re.trictiov. tacea b, tbe Corover ov tbe eavivatiov of tbe eriaevce re.evtea to tbe
viviivqve.t. ava tbe re.evtatiov of tbe atbotogi.t.` veaicat oiviov a.
ivcovtrorertibte, tbe ivo.itiov of tbe .1:v cvtoff .ereret, tivitea eavivatiov of tbe
re.cve, eracvatiov ava treatvevt of tbo.e rbo aiea. 1bi. rai.ea rofovva covcerv.
regaraivg .vfficievc, of ivqvir, ava eavivatiov of eriaevce.`
4
19. Dr Bill Kirkup has proided urther inormation in relation to the indings
o the Panel. Dr Kirkup has explained that o the deceased, 58 either
"aefivitet," or "robabt," had the capacity to surie beyond the 3.15 pm cut
o time. O the remaining 38, Dr Kirkup says "2: baa eitber aefivite ;) or
robabte ;1) eriaevce of cta..ic travvatic a.b,ia ritb revov. ob.trvctiov ritbovt
.igv. of cerebrat oeaeva. v tbe.e ca.e., tbe eriaevce .vgge.t. tbat aeatb occvrrea
retatiret, raiat, iv re.ov.e to .erere vvrevittivg covre..iov ava tbat erevt. after
:1:v rere vvti/et, to bare vaae a aifferevce to tbe ovtcove". loweer there is
a group o about 12 where "tbe aearavce. a. ae.cribea iv tbe o.t vortev reort.
rere vvctear, ava it ra. iv v, rier ivo..ibte to a..e.. ritb av, covfiaevce tbe voae of
aeatb. t i. o..ibte tbat a forev.ic atbotogi.t rovta be abte to v.e eert ;vagevevt to
cove to a vore ivforvatire eert oiviov ov tbe.e."
20. Proessor Crane has endorsed those conclusions. In his report he says, "t
i. aarevt frov reaaivg tbe trav.crit. of tbe viviivqve.t. tbat tbe atbotogi.t. eitber
rotvvteerea or rere ivritea b, tbe Corover to agree tbat to.. of cov.ciov.ve.. rovta bare
occvrrea raiat,, ritbiv - : .ecova., ava tbat aeatb ra. iveritabte ava rovta bare
occvrrea ritbiv a fer. vivvte. ....t i. v, oiviov tbat tbi. vvrar,ivg ictvre of a
vviforv, raia roce.. tbat tea iveritabt, to aeatb ritbiv a fer vivvte., i.
vv.v.taivabte".
21. Proessor Crane has also commented on an aspect o this case that initially
concerned me which was whether there was suicient eidence still
4
Paragraph 125, page 22 o the Panel Report, tab A
aailable or a orensic pathologist to gie eidence. Proessor Crane`s
response was clear: he concluded that "frov v, eavivatiov of tbe eriaevce
retativg to eacb of tbe aecea.ea, cav covfirv tbat betiere tbat tbi. i. .vfficievt to
evabte a forev.ic atbotogi.t to roriae tbe vece..ar, eert aarice ava a..i.tavce to a
Corover to evabte a Corover to carr, ovt effectire ivqve.t. iv retatiov to tbe itt.borovgb
rictiv.."
22. 1he Panel also presented new eidence that casts signiicant doubt on the
weight placed at the inquests on alcohol leels detected in the deceased.
1hat new eidence undermines the Coroner`s summing up at the inquests.
1he Panel concluded: 1be atterv of atcobot cov.vvtiov avovg tbo.e rbo aiea
ra. vvrevar/abte ava vot ecetiovat for a .ociat or tei.vre occa.iov`
5
.
23. As I hae made plain, the new medical eidence orms the essential basis
or this Application.
24. 1here are howeer other important indings o the lillsborough
Independent Panel that support the conclusion that it is vece..ar, or
ae.irabte iv tbe ivtere.t. of ;v.tice` that new inquests should be held.
,a, Some 116 o the 164 police statements were subjected to
substantie amendments to remoe or alter comments
unaourable to South \orkshire Police. 1he Panel`s reiew o
disclosed documents concluded that the practice o reiew and
alteration extended to the South \orkshire Ambulance Serice.
In a number o cases they delected criticisms and emphasised
the eiciency o the Ambulance Serice response. 1he Panel
concluded that in relation to the Police statements, 1be
ai.cto.ea aocvvevt. aevov.trate tbe rote ta,ea b, tbe orce .oticitor. ra.
5
Penultimate bullet point on page 18 o the Panel Report, tab A
vore .igvificavt ava airectire tbav ra. vvaer.tooa b, ora ]v.tice tvart
vitb

.
,b, 1he Panel`s indings on what is added to public understanding
by its reiew o eidence relating to the period between 1981
and 1989 ,vvbeeaea rarvivg., tbe .eea. of ai.a.ter`

, are suggestie
that there is urther releant material to how the disaster came
about that should hae been explored at the original inquests.
25. In order to grant this Application the Court must be satisied under section
13 o the Coroners Act that it is "vece..ar, or ae.irabte iv tbe ivtere.t. of ;v.tice"
that new inquests should be held.
26. My Lords, the authorities suggest that there are a number o releant, and
to some degree oerlapping, actors that are releant to whether the Court
exercises its discretion to grant this section 13 application:
,a, Is there "a reat ri./ tbat ;v.tice ba. vot beev aove", to use 1albot J's phrase
in R r Dirive e !attov.
,b, lae new acts or eidence been discoered such that it is now
appropriate or there to be new inquests Does the new eidence make
it "vece..ar, or ae.irabte iv tbe ivtere.t. of ;v.tice" that new inquests should be
held
,c, Is there a possibility that a erdict other than accident might be
reached Len i the answer to that question is "vo", would the
conclusions o the inquests be o a suiciently dierent character such
that it would nonetheless be in the "ivtere.t. of ;v.tice" or the inquests to
be quashed
6
Paragraph 13, page 24 o the Panel Report, tab A

Pages 61-86 o the Panel Report, tab A

,d, Is the lapse o time since 1989 such that there could be eectie
inquests
,e, Is there a need to allay suspicion that there had been an attempt by the
South \orkshire Police and the other emergency serices to conceal
eidence by amending and modiying witness statements
,, \hat are the iews o the amilies o the deceased as to whether there
should be new inquests
,g, \hat are the iews o the Deendants to this Application
2. In my respectul submission, the answers to all o those questions support
the granting o this Application.
28. 1he new medical eidence presented in the Panel Report strongly leads to
the conclusion that "tbere i. a reat ri./ tbat ;v.tice ba. vot beev aove", to use
1albot J's phrase in R r Dirive e !attov. 1he amilies hae each been
denied the opportunity or a thorough inquiry at the inquests into whether
earlier interention could hae aerted the atal outcome. Unortunately it
is no answer to that conclusion to point to the admirably thorough Inquiry
by Lord Justice 1aylor as he also proceeded on the now impugned medical
eidence ,insoar as the medical causes o death were releant to his
Inquiry,.
29. In some cases the eidence suggests that some "aefivitet," could hae been
saed, in others that "robabt," they could hae been saed whilst there are
other cases that would require more detailed analysis. In a ew, Dr
Kirkup's conclusions are that the injuries were not suriable. 1he
interests o justice howeer require the inquisitions into all o the deaths to
be quashed, een those where the Panel's analysis suggests that the injuries
were not suriable. All amilies were "ivtere.tea er.ov." at the generic
inquest. All are now entitled to hearing the generic eidence inestigated
in the context o the new medical eidence.
30. Dr Kirkup's comments as to the amilies' reactions at the meetings
subsequent to the publication o the Panel Report are particularly telling
and bear repeating: "^atvratt,, veart, att tbe.e favitie. a./ea rbetber tbeir retatire
ra. ove of tbo.e tbat baa .o/ev of a. otevtiatt, .areabte, ava rbetber tbe, baa
.vfferea vore tbav baa beev .aia at tbe ivqve.t. I made a point of saying to
each family that I could not comment on the relationship between
the post mortem findings and any evidence on rescue and
resuscitation attempts that might have pertained specifically to their
relative, as this would be a matter properly addressed through any
potential new inquest." ,Lmphasis added,
31. 1he amilies hae been gien important new eidence but that is
necessarily incomplete: only new inquests can gie a uller answer as to
whether interention would hae altered the tragically atal outcome. 1hat
may lead to markedly dierent conclusions as to how the deceased came
by their death that would be recorded in new inquisitions. As such only
new inquests, rather than a urther judicial inquiry, can meet the interests
o justice.
32. lurthermore, the new eidence in relation to the analysis o the
signiicance o the blood alcohol leels in the deceased also render it
"vece..ar, or ae.irabte" in the interests o justice or the inquests to be
quashed. 1he eidence in that regard that was adduced at the inquests and
which was reerred to in the summing up by the coroner wrongly
stigmatised the deceased contrary to what Simon Brown J ,as he then was,
described as "tbe aticatiov ritbiv tbe corover. ;vri.aictiov of a cteart, e.tabti.bea
otic, of aroiaivg .o far a. o..ibte av, vvvece..ar, .tigva to tbe vevor, of tbe
aecea.ea" ,R r vver ovtb ovaov Corover e Kevaatt |1988| 1 \LR 1186
,DC, at 1191l-1192A.,
33. In his loreword to the Report, the Bishop o Lierpool wrote:
\hen the Panel began its work in lebruary 2010, it could not and did
not know whether the inormation it would reeal would add to public
understanding and change that understanding. Oer the interening
months, we hae discoered that the inormation disclosed will add
signiicantly to public understanding.
...
\hen oer 30,000 came to Anield or the 20th Anniersary o
lillsborough, it showed that the wound o grie was still sore because
so many questions were yet unanswered. 1hese disclosed documents
address many o those questions. 1he Panel, which was set up
deliberately and distinctly rom an inquiry, produces this Report
without any presumption o where it will lead. But it does so in the
proound hope that greater transparency will bring to the amilies and
to the wider public a greater understanding o the tragedy and its
atermath. lor it is only with this transparency that the amilies and
suriors, who hae behaed with such dignity, can with some sense o
truth and justice cherish the memory o their 96 loed ones."
34. 1he Panel's report does indeed "aaare.. vav, qve.tiov.". 1hose that remain
can only now be answered by new inquests.
35. My Lords, we say, with the support o all those today, that the interests o
justice require the quashing o the inquisitions o the 96 people who died
as a consequence o the disaster and or new inquests to be heard.
36. Such inquests will be a major undertaking, though the recent example o
the inquests o those who died in the , bombings, demonstrates that a
single inquest into mass atalities can be eectiely heard where eelings
may run high and where complex issues o act and law arise.
3. My Lords, in consultation with the amilies, the coroners concerned and
with the Ministry o Justice, we hae considered careully the terms o the
orders that we seek. 1hose orders are set out at paragraph 126.
38. In relation to the 95 who died and whose original inquests were heard by
the Sheield Coroner, we ask that their new inquests be heard by a
"aifferevt corover iv tbe .ave aavivi.tratire area"
8
, that coroner being the
Doncaster Coroner.
39. In relation to 1ony Bland, who died in 1993 o the injuries he sustained in
the disaster and whose inquest was heard by the Bradord Coroner, we ask
in the irst instance or the new inquest to be heard by the Second
Deendant, the Bradord Coroner. |1he Bradord Coroner is not in the
same administratie area as the Doncaster or Sheield Coroner and so
cannot hear the inquest|
40. It is anticipated that i this Application is successul, the Second Deendant
and the Doncaster Coroner |lM Coroner or South \orkshire ,Last
District,| will each appoint as an assistant deputy coroner a member o the
senior judiciary who would hae conduct o the new inquests, such an
8
Section 13 (2) provides
,2, 1he ligh Court may-
,a, order an inquest or, as the case may be, another inquest to be held into the death
either-
,i, by the coroner concerned, or
(ii) by the coroner for another district in the same administrative area,
appointment being made in consultation with the appropriate bodies
9
.
1hat appointment haing been made, the assistant deputy coroner can
hold a pre-inquest hearing to consider the enue or the new Inquests, the
scope o the Inquests as well as the timetable or such Inquests.
41. My Lords, the Application that I make today is an exceptional one. I make
it personally, recognising the considerable public interest in ensuring justice
or the amilies ollowing the publication o the lillsborough Panel
Report.
42. 1he power gien to this Court by section 13 is a broad discretion. As
Simon Brown LJ ,as he then was, said in 1abarv`. case Cov.iaeratiov of tbe
vav, avtboritie. iv tbi. fieta .vgge.t. tbat tbere are vo tovger av, ab.otvte rivcite. iv
ta,, .are ovt, erba. tbat tbe ivtere.t. of ;v.tice vv.t be tbe caraivat cov.iaeratiov.`
1o use Beldam LJ`s phrase in lletcher the power in section 13 "vv.t ta/e
ivto accovvt att a.ect. of tbe ivtere.t. of ;v.tice, ivctvaivg tbe vbtic ivtere.t ava tbe
ivtere.t of tbe aticavt`.
43. I respectully submit that the section 13 test is clearly satisied in this case.
My Lords, I ask you to grant my Application.
9
1he Lord Chie Justice, the Lord Chancellor the Chie Coroner