Martin Winter v Rex

Fresh evidence does not render a conviction unsafe merely because it strengthens an alternative explanation that was already explored at trial. The appellate court must assess its likely impact against the evidence as a whole.

In a gross negligence manslaughter case involving a mass explosion, the prosecution need not establish which explosive device initiated the sequence. It is sufficient that a defendant’s unlawful high-explosive material was a substantial cause of the explosion and deaths. Negligence by emergency responders does not break causation where the defendant’s conduct remains a substantial, rather than minimal, cause.

Martin Winter and Nathan Winter were convicted at Lewes Crown Court in December 2009 of the gross negligence manslaughter of two fire-service employees killed when a fire reached an ISO container of fireworks at Marlie Farm. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had unlawfully stored and handled fireworks, including material presenting a mass-explosion hazard.

An earlier appeal against conviction failed, although Nathan Winter’s sentence was reduced: [2010] EWCA Crim 1474. Following a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the appellants relied on an HSE circular and expert evidence concerning the capacity of rook scarers to mass explode. They also sought leave to advance further grounds.

The central issue was whether the new material made the jury’s conclusion that HT1 fireworks were present in the ISO container, and had caused the fatal explosion, unsafe.

1. Appeal dismissed. The HSE circular and Mr Wraige’s later work did not affect the safety of the convictions. The jury had already heard evidence that rook scarers could mass explode. The new material added no more than a slight change of emphasis.

2. The court held that the appellants’ argument wrongly concentrated on the new evidence alone. The trial evidence formed a substantial cumulative case that HT1 fireworks were both present at the site and in the ISO container. It included commercial documents, the intended Oman display, the appellants’ warnings to emergency responders, their changing accounts, and the absence of a convincing explanation for a large quantity of rook scarers.

3. It was unnecessary to prove which device initiated the explosion. The explosion occurred in at least two stages and involved multiple devices. Applying the substantial-cause principle in R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, an HT1 firework was a sufficient cause if it materially contributed at any stage. Its position in the sequence of ignition was immaterial.

4. The court also refused leave on the additional grounds. There was no arguable apparent bias, no inequality of arms in the conduct of the expert evidence, no non-disclosure of the material risk from rook scarers, and no basis for finding that fire-service negligence broke the chain of causation. The late complaint about the summing up was incapable of affecting the safety of the convictions.

5. The convictions therefore stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal against conviction following the CCRC reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 711.
• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Referred the convictions on 12 May 2022 after reconsideration of the fresh-evidence issues.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In the earlier appeal, the convictions were upheld and Nathan Winter’s sentence was reduced from five to four years: [2010] EWCA Crim 1474.
• Crown Court at Lewes: Martin Winter was convicted of two counts of gross negligence manslaughter on 14 December 2009. Nathan Winter was convicted of two counts on 16 December 2009.