A mother's unwavering determination to seek justice for her daughters has led to a new legal battle, one that promises to be an emotional and controversial journey. Jenni Hicks, a parent who lost her teenage daughters Victoria and Sarah in the tragic Hillsborough disaster, is refusing to give up, even after 37 years.
"I look at their photos and I know I can't just walk away," Jenni says, her voice filled with emotion. Her daughters, aged 15 and 19, were among the 97 Liverpool fans who lost their lives on that fateful day in 1989.
Jenni and her ex-husband, Trevor Hicks, are now leading a campaign to rectify a grave injustice. They aim to correct official court records from the 1990s, which falsely state that their children were unconscious within seconds and died within minutes of the terrace crush.
But here's where it gets controversial... subsequent investigations, including a second set of inquests in 2016, revealed a starkly different picture. Overwhelming evidence showed that many victims, including Victoria and Sarah, were conscious for at least half an hour after the initial crush.
The record cannot be officially amended without the consent of South Yorkshire Police. And this is the part most people miss: Jenni and Trevor claim that the police force has refused to agree to a fresh hearing where an accurate statement could be made in open court.
When approached for comment, Chief Constable Lauren Poultney stated, "Under my leadership, we will support the families in their pursuit of justice." However, she has not yet agreed to attend the upcoming parliamentary event in Westminster, hosted by Baroness Helena Kennedy KC.
On Monday, Jenni and Trevor will address this event, bringing together MPs, peers, and legal experts to discuss the issue. They aim to urge the justice system, courts, and politicians to consider ways to correct inaccurate court records.
"You're left in this limbo, unable to find the truth about your children's deaths," Jenni told the BBC. "Even now, South Yorkshire Police refuse to set the record straight."
Trevor sees this as his final battle for the truth, after nearly four decades of campaigning. At 80 years old, he reflects on how most of his adult life has been dedicated to this cause.
"It would have been so much simpler for the police or their legal team to make a statement in open court," he says. "But they've chosen not to, so we're left with no choice but to take a political route to fix what could have been easily resolved."
The records in question stem from a civil case in the early 1990s, where families of the victims sued South Yorkshire Police for the pain and suffering endured by their loved ones. Victoria and Sarah became test cases, and despite their parents' appeals to the House of Lords, the ruling favored the police.
The case was scuppered by the so-called "30-second rule" - a false presumption that every person killed in the disaster was unconscious within 30 seconds. The police also claimed that all victims had died before 15:15 GMT, a claim later proven to be false.
The courts ruled that Sarah and Victoria experienced "swift and sudden deaths," but multiple witnesses reported otherwise. Victoria was seen crying and in distress, while her sister Sarah was intensely panicked and distressed about Victoria's well-being.
Medical evidence from the new inquests stated that victims who died from asphyxia at Hillsborough likely experienced fluctuating levels of consciousness and physical injuries over extended periods.
Caoilfhionn Gallagher KC, the lead counsel for Jenni and Trevor Hicks, emphasizes that this case goes beyond Hillsborough. "It's about the legal system's ability to correct itself when later evidence proves earlier assumptions wrong," she says.
"The findings of the 2012 Hillsborough Independent Panel and the fresh inquests are unequivocal. Sarah and Victoria did not experience a swift and sudden death. For an agonizing hour, they suffered prolonged pain and distress. Yet the legal record remains unchanged."
Jenni and Trevor see this as their last legal battle for their children. But they also recognize the broader implications. "It's not just about our daughters; it's about everyone who died that day and other families facing similar injustices and incorrect legal records," Jenni says.
Chief Constable Poultney acknowledges the "serious errors and mistakes" made by her force, leading to "tremendous regret" and the loss of lives. She recognizes the distress caused by the court's findings and the lack of a route to challenge them.
"I wish Mr. and Mrs. Hicks the best for the parliamentary event," she added.
This story is a powerful reminder of the resilience and determination of families seeking justice, even in the face of institutional resistance. It raises important questions about the legal system's ability to correct itself and the impact of inaccurate records on grieving families.
What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think the legal system should have the power to amend its own records when new evidence emerges? Share your opinions in the comments below.
