Pages of police operational order for the 1989 fixture shown to the Hillsborough jury.

Mr Beal admitted he was concerned that Liverpool, a team with a much larger fan base than their opponents, were being given a smaller allocation of tickets at Hillsborough.

"It’s a factor we were all concerned about but we had to weigh against the policing tactics, the safety of the spectators, the nightmare it would cause if the northern-based supporter travelled to the south approach of

the ground and the southern based supporter travelled to the north of the ground," he said.

Ms Lambert asked him if he felt it generated a risk of congestion at the turnstiles.

"Well yes," he replied, "but I'd like to qualify that answer in that I don't see how we could have policed the ground any other way.

"The solution I would offer which would not have been accepted would be that we didn't police the ground and the match didn't take place there because changing ends would create other problems and there

would have been criticism for any public disorder that broke out created by the police’s plan to guide spectators north to south and south to north."

Pages of the police's operational order for the 1989 fixture were shown to the court.

One extract, typed in bold, said: "No-one is to be allowed access to the track from the terraces without consent of a senior officer (expect to receive medical attention)."

Mr Beal said he now has reservations about the instruction although he didn't at the time.

Miss Lambert asked whether filter cordons of officers stationed across a route checking tickets should have been set up on Leppings Lane to prevent a mass of spectators congregating at the turnstiles.

The witness said: "I understand what the argument was, but in '87 and '88 there wasn't a mass of spectators congregating at the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

Therefore, I can’t see how that justifies the need for a cordon… I would have to consider it in detail and not make a snapshot decision here and now."

He agreed that the order contained no information about ground capacity or parts of it, the use of the turnstile count mechanism, monitoring of those outside the turnstiles or inside the pens, or how the pens were filled.

He said: "If I was to do this order again under the similar circumstance to what existed in '87, '88 and '89 there would be a different section on contingency plans and that would have been included... to make officers aware that they could be deployed accordingly."

The court heard the document was signed off by Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, the match commander.

Mr Beal said no-one who reviewed the order made any comment concerning its inadequacy.