Wood Treatment Ltd & Anor, R. v

For a prosecution appeal against a terminating no-case ruling, the question is whether the evidence, taken at its highest, could enable a properly directed jury to be sure that the alleged negligence caused the death. Where causation is circumstantial and expert evidence identifies a realistic possible mechanism consistent with innocence, the prosecution must adduce evidence linking that mechanism to the alleged negligence. Evidence that poor systems increased the general risk of explosion does not, without that link, prove causation. The jury remains the decision-maker and may assess or reject expert evidence on a rational basis, but it cannot supply an evidential gap by speculation. For an individual defendant, causative acts or omissions must also be personally attributable.

The prosecution appealed under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 against a terminating ruling by the Chester Crown Court. The judge had accepted no-case submissions on four manslaughter counts against Wood Treatment Limited and George Boden following an explosion at Bosley Mill which killed four employees.

The prosecution alleged that negligent management and maintenance had caused the explosion. Expert evidence identified several possible mechanisms, including one involving a large release of dust from a machine without reliance on dust negligently allowed to accumulate in the mill. The central issue was whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to connect that realistic possibility to negligence by the company and, personally, by Mr Boden.

Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted. The prosecution appeal was dismissed, the terminating ruling was confirmed, and the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the manslaughter counts under section 61(7) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. No-case test. The statutory conditions in section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 did not require separate determination where the challenge was evidential. Applying the classic approach in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039, the question was whether the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could enable a properly directed jury to be sure that the alleged negligence caused the deaths.
2. Realistic causal mechanisms. The court agreed that the third expert scenario was a realistic possibility and might have caused the explosion. That scenario did not depend on dust which had accumulated through negligence. The prosecution therefore had to adduce evidence showing that a machine failure or rupture of that kind must have involved negligence attributable to Wood Treatment Limited and personally to Mr Boden.
3. Risk and causation. Evidence of defective systems, poor maintenance and breaches of health and safety duties showed that the risk of explosion was increased. It did not, by itself, prove that the particular explosion was caused by those failings. The civil risk-based approach discussed in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd (t/a GH Dovener & Son) [2003] AC 32 was not treated as a criminal rule.
4. Experts and jury. Experts could identify possible causes and explain how proper care might reduce or avoid them. The jury remained responsible for deciding causation. The principles concerning scientific and legal certainty, and the possible rejection of expert evidence on a rational basis, discussed in R v Gian [2009] EWCA Crim 2553, R v Brennan [2014] EWCA Crim 2387 and R v Henderson [2010] 1269, did not cure the evidential gap. There was no evidence enabling the jury rationally to conclude that the realistic machine-failure scenario had been caused by the alleged negligence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2021] EWCA Crim 618, leave was granted, but the prosecution appeal failed. The court confirmed the terminating ruling and ordered acquittals on the manslaughter counts.
2. Chester Crown Court — The Hon Mrs Justice May accepted submissions of no case to answer at the close of the prosecution case on four manslaughter counts against Wood Treatment Limited and George Boden.