The King (on the application of Ghaleb Makki) v HM Senior Coroner for South Manchester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Macur LJ,Fordham J |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 80 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/521/2022 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
and
[2023] EWHC 80 (Admin)
Lady Justice Macur
Mr Justice Fordham
Case No: CO/521/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
SITTING IN MANCHESTER
Manchester Civil Justice Centre
1 Bridge Street West, Manchester M60 9DJ
Pete Weatherby KC and Matthew Stanbury (instructed by Watson Woodhouse Ltd) for the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Alistair Webster KC (instructed by Olliers Solicitors) for the 1 st Interested Party
The 2 nd Interested Party did not appear and was not represented
Caroline Jones (instructed by GMP Legal Service) for the 3 rd Interested Party
Hearing date: 7/11/22
APPROVED JUDGMENT
The Claimant is the father of Yousef Makki (“YM”) who died as a result of a single stab wound to the chest on 2 March 2019. He was aged 17.
Joshua Molnar, (“JM”), the Interested Party, accepted that he wielded the flick knife which caused the fatal injury during a confrontation with YM in the street. He was also aged 17 at the time. He was tried for murder in 2019 and claimed that he was acting in self-defence when he stabbed YM accidentally in the chest. He was acquitted.
The Defendant is His Majesty's Senior Coroner (“HMSC”) for South Manchester, Ms Alison Mutch. She resumed the inquest into YM's death between 8 and 17 November 2021. She concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the killing was lawful or unlawful, and returned a narrative conclusion indicating that YM had died from “complications of a stab wound to the chest. The precise circumstances in which he was wounded cannot, on the balance of probabilities, be ascertained.”
This application for judicial review challenges the finding that there was an insufficiency of evidence on the ‘central issue,’ that is whether the killing was unlawful, as Wednesbury unreasonable because HMSC failed to properly consider all the evidence in reaching that conclusion. The relief sought is to quash the decision and direct a fresh inquest before a different Coroner.
I would accede to the application and grant relief for the reasons I give below.
Background
YM was friends with Adam Choudhury (“AC”). AC had purchased two flick knives. He and YM had one each. They had the knives with them on 2 March 2019 when they went to meet JM. JM was known to both of them. There was no evidence of previous animosity between them.
JM had a penknife with him when he met with YM and AC. He acquired one of the two flick knives during the course of the day. The evidence of AC at the inquest was that he provided the flick knife to JM and, after the stabbing, retrieved from YM's inside jacket pocket the other, and still retracted, flick knife which he dropped down a nearby grid. JM in evidence to the inquest said that it was AC who had provided him with the knife. In a previous statement prepared prior to police interview, he said that YM had provided him with the flick knife. JM disposed of the flick knife used in the stabbing and his pen knife in gardens nearby.
On the relevant day, YM, AC and JM first met together in a shopping precinct on their bicycles. They cycled together to a motorway bridge. It was there that JM was assaulted by two men and robbed of his bicycle. AC made off. YM remained but did not participate in the assault or defence of JM. JM suspected that he had been set up by AC. When AC returned, JM took his coat in recompense, or more accurately ransom, for his missing bicycle.
The three youths, YM, AC and JM, made off along Gorse Bank Road. CCTV footage tracked their movements.
Thereafter, an eyewitness, Mr Bowman, gave evidence that he saw “three males in the middle of the road, they looked to be pushing and shoving, not too aggressively but like there was an altercation brewing.” AC denied seeing what occurred and JM has provided inconsistent accounts.
At the inquest JM said he was not sure who had produced a knife first. However, in police interview he maintained that YM had goaded him by calling him “pussy.” He pushed YM who then pulled out a knife and struck him with his fist to the left side of JM's head shouting words to the effect ‘come on then.’ JM then pulled out his knife and YM moved onto the knife. JM claimed to be acting in self-defence.
In the 999 call AC made to the police he denied seeing the stabbing but asserted that the offender had made off in an unknown direction, and that he had seen a car which had been involved. In his police interviews, he said that he saw YM and JM “…spring back in and out of each other…as if they were about to fight or as if they were fighting…I saw their shoulders touch each other…[JM] was slightly in front”.
At the scene, and within minutes of the stabbing, JM initially implicated “a gentleman in a grey hatchback/a blue hatchback…” but subsequently told police that he thought “four Black guys” from Stretford were involved, and that he had seen what he thought was a Polo car driving away. He told a Special Constable that he and “his mate” came across YM against the tree already stabbed.
In a subsequently prepared statement to the police, he said: “I took [AC]'s coat and said I wouldn't give it back until he had found my bike. Yousef called me a ‘pussy.’ I was upset and pushed Yousef away with my open palm, then I backed away because as far as I was concerned that was the end of the matter. Yousef is hot tempered. He is also a few inches taller than me. He can be violent. Yousef pulled his knife out. He swung at me with his fist, striking me to the left side of my head. He shouted, ‘come on then,’ or words to that effect. I was terrified. He came towards me. I pulled the knife Yousef had given me. I moved my arm forwards with the knife in my hand. I think he came on to the knife, which made things worse, I was acting in self-defence.”
As indicated above, JM was indicted and tried for the murder of YM. AC was tried for perverting the course of justice. JM was acquitted of murder and, alternately, manslaughter. He was convicted of perverting the course of justice for the false account he gave at the scene. AC was acquitted.
The Inquest
At the resumed inquest HMSC received “a substantial amount of evidence…in relation to the 2 nd March 2019” over five days and heard submissions on the sixth day. In relating her determinations and conclusions on the seventh day, HMSC did not “seek to summarise each and every aspect of the evidence” but said she had reread her notes made during the course of the inquest, viewed CCTV and body worn camera footage and taken into account the submissions of all relevant participants. Nevertheless, her summary made extensive reference to the contextual evidence including YM and AC's meeting with JM, the confrontation on the motorway bridge between JM and the Chaudhry brothers in the presence of YM, the possibility of a thwarted drugs deal, the loss of JM's bicycle, JM's subsequent antipathy towards AC who had left the scene and angry reaction in taking possession of AC's coat upon his return to join JM and YM.
The findings of fact made by HMSC are interspersed throughout her summary of the evidence and are not always explicitly described as such but, rather, are discerned from the narrative, for example, “there is nothing to suggest that that account is incorrect.” So far as they appear relevant to the application they include the following: (i) AC had ordered two flick knives from the internet; (ii) the flick knives are offensive weapons per se; (iii) those knives were available to YM and AC on the 2 nd March; (iv) YM and AC knew JM; (v) contact was made by AC with JM on the 2 March 2019 and a meeting arranged; (vi) in the meantime contact was made by AC with another individual to arrange the purchase and delivery of drugs later that day to a specified location; (vii) YM, AC and JM met on their bicycles and proceeded to an underground car park; (viii) there were three knives in total: the two flick knives and JM's folding pen knife; (ix) JM was in possession of the penknife, AC and YM were in possession of the flick knives when they first met; (x) the meeting on the motorway bridge was a “pivotal moment for the relationship between” YM, AC and JM; (xi) JM was assaulted by two other individuals (the Chaudhry brothers) on the bridge; (xii) YM was unaware that this would happen; he stayed at the scene but played no part in the assault other than “what appears to be a peaceful role”; (xiii) AC left the scene and was absent for approximately 90 minutes; (xiv) YM had not fallen out with anyone; he made contact with AC and appeared to almost be the contact point between AC and JM; (xv) AC returned to meet with YM and JM who had left the motorway bridge; (xvi) JM was annoyed at losing his bicycle and removed AC's coat from him as a ransom to ensure he assisted in locating the bicycle; (xvii) AC did not have time to remove possessions from his coat pockets.
However, I find HMSC's summary of the evidence that she took into account regarding the incident itself, and two findings of fact that she made, to be of more particular relevance.
HMSC related JM's account of the time immediately preceding the stabbing as: “he was feeling pretty hard done by at the time, that [YM] spoke to him, and he was fed up, he said he wanted to go home, and he didn't really remember what had been said and it escalated. He indicated his recollection was that [YM] pushed him, he said he got annoyed, and there was quite a lot of swearing, he thought he might have pushed [YM] back, one of them…there was some swearing. He said he couldn't remember who pulled out a knife. He thought [YM] had hit him and...
To continue reading
Request your trial