header-logo header-logo

Settlements reached on Hillsborough claims

09 June 2021
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , Inquests
printer mail-detail
Two police forces have agreed to settle claims of survivors and friends and family of those who died in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster for the cover up that followed, law firm Edwin Coe has confirmed

The disaster at the FA Cup semi-final 32 years ago killed 96 Liverpool fans, and their families and friends have endured a gruelling campaign for justice.

A trial against two retired police officers and a solicitor accused of perverting the course of justice collapsed in May after Mr Justice William Davis ruled there was insufficient evidence for the trial to proceed. The three, who all worked for South Yorkshire Police, were each accused of two counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice. All three were acquitted.

However, David Greene, senior partner of Edwin Coe, confirmed last week that South Yorkshire Police and West Midlands Police have since agreed settlement with 600 claimants including survivors and families of the 96 deceased. The settlement was agreed with all law firms representing clients under the Group Litigation Order and is agreed in principle and yet to be quantified on an individual basis. All Edwin Coe clients were in the stadium on the day.

Greene said the compensation relates to the post-disaster cover up and misfeasance in public office.

‘Despite recent comments following the criminal case collapse there was definitely a cover up and misfeasance in public office,’ Greene said.

‘The cover-up was detailed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel in September 2012, its existence was accepted by the then Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire police, acknowledged by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, and by the Lord Chief Justice of the High Court. The Inquest jury in the 2014-2016 inquests found that the behaviour of the fans did not contribute to the deaths of the 96. The attempt to rewrite history is an affront to those that died, the survivors and families.

‘We trust that a settlement will put an end to any fresh attempts to rewrite the record and wrongly claim that there was no cover-up. In so commenting, we contrast the dignity of the bereaved families and the supporters, with the conduct of those who still seek to peddle the discredited lies of the past.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll