The Question on the Application of Peter Dennis v. DPP

EWHC 3211 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

The Question on the Application of Peter Dennis v. DPP

England and Wales High Court of Justice
EWHC 3211 (2006)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Seventeen-year-old Daniel Dennis was in his second week of working for Roy Clarke (defendant) of North Eastern Roofing when he fell through a skylight and died. An inquest was held before the coroner for Gwent and a jury. The inquest heard evidence from Daniel Dennis’s father, Peter Dennis (plaintiff); Clarke; coworkers of Daniel Dennis at North Eastern Roofing; a pathologist; and a member of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Peter Dennis maintained that Daniel Dennis had no experience working on roofs, received no training, and was not provided with any safety equipment. The jury found that Daniel Dennis’s death was an unlawful killing. Subsequently, solicitors for Peter Dennis made submissions to Clarke indicating that there was an abundance of evidence to support manslaughter charges against Clarke. Ian Griffiths, a solicitor in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), wrote to Peter Dennis’s solicitors and indicated that the case did not satisfy the evidential test of the Code for Crown Prosecutions. Griffiths based his decision on information Clarke gave to police during his Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) interview. Griffiths found that Clarke’s negligence did not amount to criminal negligence because Daniel Dennis had been told specifically not to go near skylights, there was no evidence Daniel Dennis was told to go on the roof, and Clarke suggested that Daniel Dennis had some experience in the building trade. Counsel for Daniel Dennis’s family submitted that the CPS had failed to follow its own procedures and must reconsider the matter. Daniel Dennis’s family argued that Griffiths did not consider information from Clarke’s PACE interview that Clarke had instructed Daniel Dennis to go on the roof to clean that day, that Daniel Dennis had no prior experience in the building trade or received any training, and that Daniel Dennis had gone on roofs on at least two other occasions.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Waller, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership