R v DPP, ex parte Manning and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | ORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J0517-4 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2054/99 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 May 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J0517-4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Ord Chief Justice
F England And Wales (Lord Bingham of Cornhill)
Mr Justice Morison
Case No: CO/2054/99
Nicholas Blake QC and Dexter Dias (instructed by Bhatt Murphy London N1 6HB) for the applicant
James Turner QC and Richard Barton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Director of Public Prosecutions
The applicants are sisters of the late Mr Alton Manning ("the deceased") who died in Blakenhurst Prison on 8 December 1995. They seek judicial review of the decision taken on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute any defendant for manslaughter as a result of the manner in which the deceased met his death. The grounds of the application are, in brief, that no adequate reasons for the decision were given, that the reasons which were given to the applicants did not reflect the true basis of the decision and the true reasons, now disclosed, are unsustainable.
The facts
The deceased was a man of Afro-Caribbean origin aged 33. From August 1995 until his death he was held in Blakenhurst Prison awaiting trial for an offence of violence. He had a record of violence for which he had previously served three custodial sentences. His aggressive behaviour on remand had led to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.
The detailed facts leading to the death of the deceased are in some respects contentious and unclear. But the broad outline of events does appear to be fairly plain. At about 8 pm on the evening of 8 December 1995 two prison officers decided to search the deceased for drugs. He was escorted from his own cell in spur C of House Block 3 at the prison to an empty cell (number 35) on the opposite side of the central passage. There he lifted up his vest and T-shirt so that the top half of his body could be seen. He then, without demur, removed all his clothing below the waist. On being told by one of the officers (Mr Brumby), probably without justification, to squat so that his private parts could be visually inspected for the secretion of drugs, he refused and instead, it seems, launched an attack on the other of the two prison officers present (Mr Reynolds). A violent altercation then followed. Help was summoned. The deceased struggled but was overpowered. He was either led, in a bent over position, or carried from cell 35. He was, on leaving the cell if not earlier, carried by prison officers face down and with his head forward. The senior prison officer present (Unit Manager Nicholson) had control of the deceased's head. Two more prison officers, Mr Day and Mr O'Prey, had hold of his left and right arms respectively, both arms being held behind the back of the deceased with the forearms forced upwards towards his shoulders. Two more prison officers, Mr Reynolds and Mr Brumby, each had hold of a leg. An additional prison officer, Ms Trindle, did not participate physically in the restraint of the deceased, but accompanied the other officers in order to discharge her duty of ensuring that the deceased was able to breathe. There were other prison officers in the vicinity who did not participate in the restraint. The episode was also witnessed by a number of prisoners. The deceased was carried from cell 35 down the central passage and through a security gate before being carried down some steps to a servery. The distance was short and the time taken a few minutes. Although the evidence was not consistent, it seems likely that the deceased continued to struggle, at any rate intermittently, until he reached the servery. There a handcuff was applied to one of his wrists. Then his body suddenly went limp and blood was seen to come from his ear. Vigorous efforts were made to resuscitate him, but on examination he was found to be dead.
Early the next morning a post-mortem examination of the deceased was made by Dr Helen Whitwell, a consultant pathologist whose findings have been accepted subject to points of detail. She found areas of abrasion on the back of the deceased. There was evidence of blood-staining around the face. There were a few tiny petechiae over the conjunctivae of the left eye in particular. She found no obvious marks of injury to the neck, although she noted possible slight discoloration over an area of 3.5 centimetres at the back. She recorded evidence of blood visible to the right middle ear, and blood externally in the right ear. Of the neck structures she reported:
"The laryngeal structures: There was evidence of haemorrhage with a small amount of bruising in the tissues around the superior thyroid cartilage, and there was bruising around the right thyroid gland. The larynx itself showed congestion with some petechiae. No obvious fracture of the bones was identified."
Exploration of the structures of the back revealed extensive bruising with haemorrhage in the central back region extending over 8�9 centimetres. There was further bruising of the muscular tissues in the region of the scapula, more markedly on the right. The pathologist's final conclusions were expressed in these terms:
"The findings here are of an "asphyxial" death � in particular evidenced by the conjunctival petechiae and bleeding into the ear. Other positive findings include haemorrhage with bruising around the thyroid cartilage and gland with laryngeal congestion and petechiae. There is also evidence of bruising to the muscles over the back of the body.
This death falls into the category of death occurring as a result of respiratory impairment/restriction during restraint leading to asphyxia. In this case there is evidence that airway occlusion arose due to pressure to the neck (as evidenced by the internal findings). In addition, restriction of chest movement whilst on the ground with pressure applied to the back of the chest would occur. Apart from these asphyxia can occur as a result of being in the prone position i.e. when carried face down. This appears to be due to interference with the breathing process itself causing decreased respiratory movement and/or compromise to the airway. Thus, in this case there is likely to have been a combination of mechanisms leading to asphyxia. Physical/emotional exertion as in the fight/flight situation is also likely to have occurred exacerbating the effects of respiratory restriction. The deceased had evidence of narrowing to one of the arteries supplying the heart muscle. This could also have played a role �
In terms of other injury these are in themselves of a relatively minor type and consistent with a struggle situation. They have not caused or contributed to death."
The circumstances of the death were investigated by the West Mercia Police, and the papers were referred to a Special Casework Lawyer of the Crown Prosecution Service based in Reading. On 27 September 1996 he wrote to solicitors representing the family of the deceased to inform them that, having applied the Code for Crown Prosecutors, he had reached the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of convicting any person mentioned in the police report on a criminal charge. Following the appointment of His Honour Gerald Butler QC to inquire into CPS decision-making in relation to deaths in custody and related matters, and in anticipation of his likely recommendations, Senior Treasury Counsel was instructed in September 1997 to advise on whether any prosecution should be brought in the present case. Counsel wrote a detailed advice in which he agreed with the original decision that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction.
As required by section 8 of the Coroner's Act 1988, an inquest was held with a jury into the death of the deceased. There was a lengthy hearing at which the family of the deceased and certain prison officers were represented. The evidence given at the inquest was sharply divided. Mr Nicholson testified that he had, throughout the period when the deceased was carried, controlled his head in the approved Home Office manner, with one hand under the deceased's chin and another on top of his head. He said that during the short journey he had talked constantly to the deceased, and the deceased himself had spoken. He received a measure of support from some other prison officers. By contrast, a number of prisoners said that they had seen the deceased held in a neck-lock with a prison officer's forearm. It was common ground that such a hold was forbidden and dangerous. Before directing the jury the coroner indicated his intention to leave it open to the jury, if so advised, to return a verdict of unlawful killing on the basis of unlawful act manslaughter. Application was made for leave to move for judicial review to quash this decision, but leave was refused. The coroner accordingly left that verdict to the jury, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict of unlawful killing. No attempt has been made to challenge that verdict.
By this time responsibility for reviewing the decision not to prosecute in this case had been assigned to Mr Western, a Special Casework Lawyer employed by the CPS whose responsibility was specifically to consider and advise on cases in which death or serious injury had been sustained by persons in police or prison custody. He attended part of the hearing when leave to move for judicial review was sought, and part of the coroner's final direction to the jury, in addition to familiarising himself with the witness statements, transcripts of evidence and other documents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Datuk Mohd Zaid bin Ibrahim v Peguam Negara Malaysia
-
Earl Hodge Applicant v The Governor of the Territory of the Virgin Islands Respondent
...consistent with the reasoning in the cases of M v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R v DPP ex parte Treadway and R v DPP ex parte Manning. 56 The Applicants also referenced that following observation made by Smellie J after he considered section 7 (4) of the 1989 UK Extraditio......
-
Earl Hodge Applicant v The Governor of the Territory of the Virgin Islands Respondent
...consistent with the reasoning in the cases of M v Secretary of State for the Home Department and R v DPP ex parte Treadway and R v DPP ex parte Manning. 56 The Applicants also referenced that following observation made by Smellie J after he considered section 7 (4) of the 1989 UK Extraditio......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...Ex p Rechachi [2000] 2 AC 326 (QB) ([1999] 4 All C ER 801): referred to R v Director of Public Prosecutions, Ex p Manning and Another [2001] QB 330 ([2000] 3 WLR 463): referred R (Corner House Research and Another) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] WLR (D) 106 (HL): referred to ......
-
PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION AND THE LEGAL LIMITS IN SINGAPORE
...Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] 2 SLR 49 at [63]. 141 See R v The Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Patricia Manning[2001] QB 330 at [23], per Lord Bingham CJ (that the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision depends on “the exercise of an informed judgment of how a case again......
-
The Application of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 to Decisions not to Prosecute
...der Law 2014 4 SA 298 (SCA) para 25.24 Para 25.25 Para 26. See in th is regard R v Direct or of Public Prosecu tions, Ex parte M anning [2001] QB 330 para 23; R v Director of Pub lic Prosecution s, Ex Parte C [1995] 1 Cr App R 136, 139G-140A.26 R v Director of Publ ic Prosecutions , Ex Part......
-
Rehabilitation, risk management and prisoners’ rights
...Securities Commission [1995] 3 WLR 413.Osman v UK [2000] 29 EHRR 245.Price v UK [2002] 34 EHRR 53.R v DPP ex parte Manning and Melbourne [2001] QB 330 DC.R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison ex parte Hague, and Weldon v Home Office [1991] 3 All ER 733.R v Secretary of State for the Home ......
-
What Has the ECHR Done for Victims? A United Kingdom Perspective
...day, reversing the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal.74 Paragraph 124.75 (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 29.76 Paragraph 82.77 Paragraph 83.78 [2001] Q.B. 330. The case was decided before the Human Rights Act came into force but thecourt considered it on this basis. For a more extensive account of......