Police have released images of 10 potential witnesses to the Hillsborough stadium disaster they want to speak to.
The images were issued by the team investigating the 1989 tragedy and follows 6 earlier appeals. Pictures of 81 people have so far been released in relation to the 96 deaths of Liverpool fans 16 years ago. 37 of those people have since been identified after they came forward. The appeal was launches following the request of a coroner and the victims families. The deaths sparked public outrage after the victims were crushed in the FA Cup semi finals at Sheffield Wednesday’s ground.
Several families sued for post traumatic stress and received compensation for associated illnesses in relation to the shock of the news. Eligibility for claims was divided into primary and secondary victims, with a restricted approach given to the definition of primary victims. Primary victims was defined as those involved ‘mediately’ or ‘immediately as a participant and within the zone of physical danger.’
Secondary victims are those not within the zone of danger but witnesses of horrific event. Stringent stipulations were accorded to claimants in this category. They must demonstrate 4 Alcock’ criteria points to establish liability. First, there must be a close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the victim. Such close ties are presumed in parent and child relationships and between spouses. However, they must be proved in other relationships. Siblings do not have an automatic claim in this respect, and must prove their was a close tie of love and affection. Siblings who had a strained relationship with a fan who died in the disaster could not claim for any psychiatric illness derived from learning that their brother or sister was fatally crushed on the fateful day in question. If they were not on talking terms, they were adjudged not eligible to a claim since the required love and affection was automatically questionable.
Friends on the other hand, could be eligible to a claim if they could demonstrate a relationship with the deceased that evidenced one of love and affection. These guidelines are fair on the face of it, but faulty in the sense that a sibling may have had a temporary fall out with their brother or sister, yet may have had a lot of love and affection for them. However, it seems the law was designed to ensure the system of compensation was not abused. Stipulating a rigid criteria for eligibility was wise in this sense.
A second criteria for defining secondary victims was that the claimants witnessed the events with their own ”unaided senses”, so that seeing the event on the news was not sufficient to pass this criteria. Whilst it is obvious that one could have been mentally injured by seeing the events on the news, the guidelines were established to prevent any potential abuse of the system. Thirdly, it was required that a claimant proved proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath, and fourthly; that psychiatric injury was a result of a shocking event.
Shock was strictly stipulated to involve a ‘ sudden appreciation of sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind’. Eye of Media have learnt that there are still victims up till this day who suffer psychiatric illness but were not eligible to claim because of the strictly defined criteria for eligibility. Many are being counselled by victim support groups. The Hillsborough disaster was one of the most horrifying calamities to befall football fans in this country. It was later revealed that a top police superintendent told officers to gather evidence and blame drunken fans for the disaster. Superintendent Terry Wane who led the briefing at headquarters of South Yorkshire Police told officers ”we are going to put the blame for the disaster where it belongs, on drunken ticketless Liverpool fans”. South Yorkshire police subsequently admitted ”we have blood on our hands”
