Hillsborough: Collapse of Trials

Debate between Angela Crawley and Robert Buckland

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Justice Committee. I think I should correct the record; it was, of course, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) who asked the urgent question. I know that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) is similarly supportive, and I am sure that she is more than grateful to be referred to, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, who is in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend is right to talk about the excellent report that his Committee has done. We will respond to it by the end of July, and my officials are working on that response. His question draws out some important points that we should all remember when it comes to inquests. Inquests are processes that are designed to uncover the facts. They are not trials; they cannot be trials. This brings us back to the essential point for the families. The families have put their faith in the criminal trial process as a way of responsibility—people being held to account. However comprehensive the inquest process was—and the inquest chaired by Sir John Goldring was, indeed, a very comprehensive and thorough piece of work that all of us can reflect upon and understand—it was never going to be a trial.

The point I seek to make is that we must ensure that, when we talk about equality of arms, which is a very important point that underpins the hon. Lady’s campaign, we do not turn to some sort of adversarial blame game. That would be wrong. It would be a disservice, frankly, to bereaved families, and it would be a misunderstanding of the coroner’s function. Article 2 widens the provisions of the inquest to allow for wider consideration to be given, but it is important that all of us focus upon the function of an inquest and the fact that any changes to be made should not detract from its essential quality.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]]

The Hillsborough disaster was a fatal human tragedy at a football match at Hillsborough stadium in Sheffield on 15 April 1989. I pay tribute to those who lost their lives and the families who have spent decades in pursuit of justice.

In 2016, the inquiry findings concluded that 96 victims were unlawfully killed due to gross negligence. Police errors in planning, defects at the stadium and delays in the emergency response all contributed to the disaster. The behaviour of fans was not to blame. The 32-year battle for justice by the families shows that the English legal system is in dire need of reform. It has failed to provide any real accountability for these unlawful deaths and a cover-up that extended from the police lying and omitting crucial details to the media narrative shifting, blaming fans for their deaths, and a long, hard fight for the truth. The collapse of the latest trial means that no one will be held criminally responsible. Margaret Aspinall, who lost her 18-year-old son in the disaster and is the former chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, has called this outcome a

“cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up”,

saying that families have been

“put through a 32-year legal nightmare looking for the truth and accountability.”

Given the collapse of the trial, how does the Minister plan to promote confidence in accountability for public servants and in the idea that fair justice is ensured in the English legal system? The ruling that the Government inquiries are not a course of public justice and that in effect public servants cannot be held legally to account for evidence provided to them is incorrect and risks creating a dangerous precedent for those who wish to withhold or amend evidence for future inquiries. What action will the Minister take to ensure that the system of inquiries is not compromised by this ruling?

This is the end of the legal line for the Hillsborough campaigners. The reviews, inquiries, inquests and criminal trials have allowed the record to be set straight and established that fans were not to blame for the disaster. However, no convictions have been made and many still feel that justice has not been served. What assurances can the Government give to the victims and their families that the lessons of Hillsborough have been learned and that justice and accountability remain unequivocally guaranteed in the English legal system?

No one should go to a football match and not return home afterwards. It is right that the matter is considered carefully and sensitively, but after 32 years the campaign for justice for the 96 rightly deserved justice.

[Robert Buckland]

In the hon. Lady’s sensitive and appropriate invocation of the memories of the 96, it is right to pause to remember that 50 years ago the Ibrox disaster happened in Glasgow, a major disaster costing many, many lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Crawley and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

What plans he has to bring forward proposals to amend the Human Rights Act 1998.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The Government established the independent Human Rights Act review to examine the framework of the Act—how it is operating in practice and whether any change is required. The review will consider the approach taken by the domestic courts to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, and it will also examine whether the Act currently strikes the correct balance between the roles of the courts, the Government and Parliament. It will then consider whether—and, if so, what—reforms might be justified. It will report back in the summer and its report will be published, as well as the Government’s response.

[Angela Crawley [V]]

Last week in the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Lord Neuberger pointed out that the Human Rights Act plays an important role in ensuring that people have access to justice and the means to protect their rights in court, and that the Act is even more vital as legal aid is squeezed. Does the Secretary of State agree with this statement, and does he recognise that removing human rights avenues at the same time as legal aid centres will reduce the ability of citizens to protect their human rights?

[Robert Buckland]

I agree with the noble Lord that the Act has played an important part in helping many applicants with important cases that have been brought before the courts. However, I can reassure the hon. Lady that the review is all about the framework of the Act itself, not about the scope of the convention rights that are scheduled within it, and the two issues should not be confused, either accidentally or intentionally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angela Crawley and Robert Buckland

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

20. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the UK’s human rights framework.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

I have been discussing this issue with my Cabinet colleagues and will continue to do so. The United Kingdom is committed to protecting and respecting human rights and will continue to champion them both here and abroad. As set out in our manifesto, after Brexit we need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution, including the balance between the rights of individuals and effective government.

[Angela Crawley]

I welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker.

Before the general election, the Conservative manifesto promised to update the Human Rights Act 1998. Since its introduction, the Act has successfully protected countless citizens across the UK from human rights abuses, so can the Secretary of State tell me which specific aspects of the Act need updating?

[Robert Buckland]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave in the context of the constitutional commission. Updating Acts is something we do regularly in this place. The Human Rights Act is now just over 20 years old. Aspects of its operation have worked very well; others deserve a further look—for example, the operation of the margin of appreciation and how Strasbourg case law is adhered to. All those issues are relevant and material to the work of the commission.