Who were the organisations and individuals not charged over Hillsborough?

Charges were not brought against a number of individuals and organisations investigated over the Hillsborough disaster during Operation Resolve.

Here are details as explained by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Police Officers

Six other police officers of various ranks had their actions investigated in respect of conduct in planning for the match and/or on the day.

The CPS said it found there was a failure to define roles and task responsibility to those acting in command. It said this made it "extremely difficult to demonstrate matters which fell within the specific performance or discharge of duties owed by individual officers and there was a lack of specific instructions as to how any duty should be carried out''.

It concluded that while there was evidence of failure to meet the standards of leadership rightly expected of their respective ranks, there were no acts or omissions capable of amounting to gross negligence manslaughter or an abuse of the public's trust to the required criminal standard for an offence of misconduct in public office.

Before 1998, no police force or individual officer was subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Prosecutors also considered whether some of these officers should be charged with administration of justice offences, for example perverting the course of justice, but there was not sufficient evidence.

Sheffield Wednesday Football Club

The CPS found that Sheffield Wednesday Football Club as it exists today is a different company to the one at the time of the disaster, when it was Sheffield Wednesday PLC. As it is not a successor organisation, the CPS said it is not criminally liable for any offences that might have been committed.

The CPS found there were no longer any directors or other individuals who formed the original company and therefore no one who could represent it in the dock, give instructions to answer any criminal charge or enter a plea. Even if the company were to be found guilty in those circumstances, there could be no penalty as it would not have any assets with which to pay a fine and no one else liable to pay it.

Therefore, while prosecutors did find sufficient evidence for a health and safety offence, it concluded it is not in the public interest to prosecute at this time.

South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service

Similar findings were made in relation to SYMAS, which was criticised for its failure to respond adequately to the unfolding disaster.

But prosecutors found that SYMAS was a service supplied by Trent Regional Health Authority (TRHA) rather than a legal entity itself and TRHA ceased to exist when its responsibilities were transferred.

As criminal liability was not transferred to the successor organisations, there is no body - corporate or incorporate - which could now be prosecuted, even if liability could be proven.

The actions of three SYMAS employees were investigated by the CPS.

SYMAS employees

It concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge the two more senior officers with an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, but there was sufficient evidence of a health and safety breach against one junior ambulance employee. However it was concluded that it was not in the public interest to prosecute this worker.

He was found to have contributed to a delayed response from the ambulance service, including a delay in the notification of hospitals and request of a mobile medical team, the dispatch of the major incident vehicle, and a delay in asserting command and control of the incident.

He was the "eyes and ears'' of SYMAS on the ground and the first and best positioned employee to make a proper assessment. The first few minutes were critical and a better response might have made a difference to survival.

The CPS said there was sufficient evidence that this suspect failed to take reasonable care for the safety of those who may be affected by his acts and omissions at work as a station officer, namely the supporters in the pens, by his failure to look in the pens and failure to declare a major incident.

But it concluded that he did not create the circumstances of the crisis he faced, and his reaction to it - while entirely inadequate - cannot be proven to have directly caused any deaths. The offence also did not involve a reckless disregard for health and safety, and rather may have arisen from a reaction of shock at the unfolding tragedy of enormous scale. In the words of the expert, this suspect was "not well enough prepared by his employer'' in relation to this match.

Because the CPS could not prosecute SYMAS or the more senior officers for their overall poor response, and because the offence only carries a fine, along with other reasons, it was decided it was not in the public interest to prosecute that individual alone.

Expert evidence on the SYMAS response was critical, but it was not possible to quantify the effect that any failings had on the victims.

The expert's views were summarised as follows: "The actions of the SYMAS staff that were present at the match from the outset, and those that attended as a result of being sent to the disaster, must be considered in the light that this was an event that had developed very quickly, resulting in very high numbers of dead and dying patients in a very short space of time."

This was an event that occurred right in front of the SYMAS staff and the police, and they did not have the luxury of even a minute's thinking time.

"This disaster would have proved extremely challenging for even the most experienced ambulance officers, ambulance staff and ambulance control staff to have dealt with in a structured manner.''

The expert said that while there were failures and consequences flowing from the actions of the ambulance staff, "it may be that these failures ... arose from inexperience both of planning for, and dealing with, major incidents rather than from deliberate omission or commission of acts''

The Football Association

The conduct of the FA and one of its officers was investigated in relation to the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act.

It was found there was insufficient evidence to establish that any breach of the safety certificate could be placed within the responsibility of the organisation, and nor did the FA contribute to a material risk to safety. It also followed that there was insufficient evidence against any FA employee under either Act.