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…
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.