Questions about the safety of the stadium are crucial not only to understanding the causes of the disaster, but also to investigating the actions of the police and other organisations. In simple terms, if the stadium was not safe, this could indicate other parties—notably SWFC—were also at fault. Set against that, the police were responsible for managing the safety of spectators attending football matches at a stadium. This meant that if officers felt any aspect of the ground was unsafe, the police had a responsibility to raise concerns to the club and other partners, and to mitigate any perceived risks to supporters.
Evidence shows that the licensing authorities—first SYCC, then SCC—did not insist on a review of the Safety Certificate in response to changes to the stadium layout or incidents of crushing.
However, the core responsibility for ensuring the Safety Certificate was up to date rested with SWFC. Over the decade after the Certificate was issued, SWFC authorised a series of significant changes to the design and layout of the stadium and in July 1986, asked Eastwood & Partners to review the current Safety Certificate and advise the club of any alterations to the terms and conditions it considered appropriate. Despite this, the Safety Certificate was not updated, and the capacities of the different areas were not reviewed, except in the case of the Spion Kop, where capacity was increased after an application from Eastwood & Partners and SWFC.
Operation Resolve investigated both SWFC and Eastwood & Partners in relation to their responsibilities under the HSWA 1974 and the SSGA 1975. However, because neither organisation exists as the same legal entity it was at the time of the disaster, it was not possible to launch meaningful legal proceedings against either. In the case of SWFC, the company was still in existence but had no registered directors; Operation Resolve ensured it was kept active for sufficient time to explore these issues.
Although proceedings could not be considered in respect of any organisation, they could in respect of individuals. Over the course of its investigation, Operation Resolve identified a range of evidence that indicated Mr Mackrell may have failed to fulfil his duties as SWFC’s ‘responsible officer’ under the SSGA 1975 and as safety officer as defined in the Green Guide.
Following the investigation by Operation Resolve, and consideration by the CPS, Mr Mackrell was charged with two offences under the SSGA 1975. These charges related to breaches of the Safety Certificate for Hillsborough Stadium alleged to have been committed by SWFC while he was the responsible officer. These charges were in addition to a separate charge against him under the HSWA 1974, which is examined in chapter 3.
During the trial of Ch Supt Duckenfield and Mr Mackrell, jurors were directed by the judge that it was not appropriate to proceed with the charges under the SSGA 1975 due to insufficient evidence.
