Two men were convicted of killing firefighters in a fireworks explosion. New evidence suggested another type of firework could have caused the blast, but the court decided there was enough old evidence to keep the convictions. The court also rejected other arguments the men made.
Key Facts
- •Martin and Nathan Winter were convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2009 for a firework explosion that killed two firefighters.
- •The explosion occurred at their fireworks company's storage facility due to unsafe storage and handling of fireworks.
- •The appellants were not licensed to store the most dangerous type of fireworks (HT1) on site.
- •The case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) based on fresh evidence regarding the potential for mass explosion from rook scarers (a type of firework).
- •The fresh evidence included an HSE letter and a report by expert witness Mr. Wraige.
Legal Principles
Test for apparent bias
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
Causation in gross negligence manslaughter
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844
Inequality of arms
Kaufman v Belgium (1986) 50 D.R. 98 at 115
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed
The Court found that the fresh evidence, while highlighting the potential for mass explosion from rook scarers, did not undermine the existing evidence demonstrating the presence of HT1 fireworks in the container and the appellants' negligence.
Leave to appeal refused on additional grounds
The Court rejected additional grounds of appeal related to apparent bias, inequality of arms, non-disclosure, and misdirection, finding them to be without merit.