Brussels
ONLY four Liverpool fans made the journey to Brussels yesterday for
the start of the appeal hearing in the Heysel riot trial.
During the appeal, the Belgian prosecutor will seek to increase the
sentences on the 14 fans who were found guilty in the original hearing.
They were each given three-year sentences, with half suspended, but
allowed to return to England.
Eight of the fans have appealed against conviction.
The appeal hearing will also review the cases involving two Belgian
policeman and the former head of the Belgian Football Union.
These were charged with negligence in policing and preparing for the
European Cup final match on May 29, 1985, when 39 people died during
terrace riots in the Heysel stadium.
The case is further complicated because claims for compensation from
the relatives of the victims have been lodged against the European
football organisation UEFA, the Mayor of Brussels, and the Belgian
state.
As the compensation cases are being held at the same time as the trial
itself, the scope of the appeal hearing has been extended by the
compensation claims.
The four Liverpool fans who arrived yesterday said they are unlikely
to attend the court for long.
''I have come here because I want to clear my name,'' said former bank
clerk Gary Evans, from Liverpool.
''The last trial was a farce, and I do not want to take the injustice
lying down. However, I only have enough money to stay in Brussels for a
few days.
The court will examine video recordings of the charges by Liverpool
fans against a group of rival Juventus supporters.
The English fans threw bottles and lumps of metal at the Italians, who
fled to the side of the stand. A wall collapsed, and 39 people died in
the crush.
The appeal court will wade through a 48,000-page dossier of written
evidence, and will review the proceedings of the previous trial.
''My aim is to get to the truth,'' said Judge Pierre van de Walle.
''If you look at the sorrow and the suffering that were caused, you
will see why we are justified in looking at this in detail. We will see
if the English fans willingly took part in the charges which led to
tragedy.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article