A jury heard that they were among the last words to be uttered by 28-year-old Jack Barnes as his heart stopped beating during the almost nine-minute long “brutal” restraint, and although it was restarted, he never regained consciousness and died in hospital several weeks later.
The four workers, who were subcontracted to Metrolink as customer service representatives, are alleged to have ignored a “walk away” policy and chased Mr Barnes, from Hull so that he could be unlawfully restrained following an earlier incident.
“There are aspects of the restraint that demonstrates the real purpose and intent of the defendants.
“Revenge, punishment and exerting a perceived authority but not to effect a lawful arrest,” claimed Jason Pitter, KC, prosecuting.
The four men are on trial at Liverpool Crown Court accused of manslaughter.
Matthew Sellers, 30, of Heathfield Road, Bury, Stephen Rowland, 68, of Wearish Lane, Westhoughton, Paul Fogarty, 51, of Monks Lane, Bolton, and Brian Gartside, 50, of Lime Grove, Ramsbottom, all deny the offence.
Rowlands also denies a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice by making a false witness statement.
Opening the prosecution case on Tuesday, January 21, Mr Pitter claimed that while restraining Mr Barnes on the ground by the Australasia Bar on Deansgate in Manchester, Rowlands told him, “We’re gonna put you out now pal…Right, if you struggle I will put you to sleep.
“It won’t kill you…it won’t kill you but you will go to sleep for a while.”
But tragically following the incident just after 11.30pm on October 11, 2016, he did not “wake” as he never regained consciousness and sadly died on December 2 by which time he had just had his 29th birthday.
Mr Pitter said: “The prosecution say the interactions of these defendants with Jack Barnes by pursuing him for several minutes and then their restraint of him did, in fact, kill him and we say unlawfully.
“That in a nutshell is what this case is about, whether they, together, unlawfully killed him.”
He said the prosecution had to prove the restraint of Mr Barnes was intentional and unlawful and any reasonable person would realise it was bound to subject him to the risk of physical harm.
They also have to prove that the restraint was a significant cause of death.
The prosecutor explained that on October 11, 2016 Mr Barnes was with other young men travelling on and around the Manchester tram network and they were causing significant problems and taking Spice.
He said: “They were misbehaving, including aggressive confrontation with members of staff on the Metrolink.
“So it is accepted that there may have been a proper basis for some interaction with Jack Barnes and his group.”
The defendants’ roles included dealing with disorder and disturbances but in a way that avoided confrontation and physical engagement.
They were acting as presence and assurance for customers and customer service representatives and to manage any conflict safely.
The “Walk Away Policy”, which the defendants understood, set out that, “a passenger who is displaying aggressive or intimidatory behaviour should not be followed off the platform under any circumstances”.
“The prosecution say that in relation to Jack Barnes the defendants deliberately operated way beyond and contrary to that policy for their own ends, rather than for any proper lawful purpose.”
Mr Pitter said that much of the significant events were captured on CCTV and some on a body-worn camera and some footage was played to the jury of six women and six men.
At about 8pm Mr Barnes and his companions were at the St Peter’s Square tram stop when a member of the Metrolink staff, Steven Hedges, spoke to them and Mr Barnes behaved in an aggressive way and forcefully moved a metal barrier to approach and confront him.
These events became known to the defendants.
“It may be that you conclude that this was part of the motivation for the defendants to behave in the way they did,” he told the jury.
At 11.10pm, Mr Barnes and his group were at Victoria Railway Station and made their way to the tram platform but seeing Metrolink staff may have disrupted their plans and when it later appeared the staff were heading in their direction the group went down a street called Station Approach.
About a minute later, Rowlands, Sellers, Hedges and other staff were seen on CCTV walking “with real purpose” to the same entrance looking along Station Approach.
Mr Pitter said: “A proper conclusion is that they were looking for Jack Barnes’ group.
“That is in clear contravention of the Walk Away Policy.”
He alleged that their “true purpose and real aim was a desire to engage in a confrontation and provoke trouble with Jack Barnes’ group.
“That would include frightening the group away or provoking a reaction that might lead to trouble for the group, including arrest.”
He said that messages between Sellers and an associate on October 9 illustrated his “inflated view of his authority” with a final message culminating in Sellers saying, “I love it me, just get into scraps and get paid for it”.
Mr Pitter said: “That approach does not reflect the mindset of someone motivated by legitimate purpose but rather someone getting a kick out of their use – or rather – abuse of position.”
At 11.26pm the two groups came together and Mr Barnes was behaving in a loutish way and shouted at Sellers to step back.
He removed a bag he was carrying and threw his cap on the floor and told his friends to go if they wanted.
He did not use violence and asked the Metrolink staff why they had “come out here to cause shit”.
He made references to earlier events, denying he had threatened Mr Hedges and telling them go back inside.
“This reinforces the proposition that this was about teaching that group a lesson.”
Violence began when Mr Barnes walked over to Sellers who placed his right arm on Mr Barnes’ chest which Mr Barnes knocked away.
One of his friends, Ethan Harvey, pushed out towards Sellers and Sellers was instrumental in taking him to the ground where he was pinned forcefully for about 15 minutes.
As Mr Barnes was moving backwards Rowlands threw a punch to Mr Barnes’ head “probably with some force”.
Mr Pitter said it was lies by Rowlands about that incident that are the subject of the perverting the course of justice charge he faces.
Mr Barnes moved off down Station Approach and after seeing the restraint of Ethan he came back into the station and swung blows at Hedges and attempted to kick him. He then ran off with his friend Craig Nevet.
Gartside and Fogarty arrived at the station and they all set off in pursuit of the two men, two using a taxi.
The pursuit lasted almost nine minutes ending when Mr Barnes was taken to the ground at 11.37 pm outside the Australasia Bar.
“That very persistent chase being the exact opposite of what the Walk Away Policy indicated should occur.
“There are a number of other considerations that in addition demonstrate that the defendants were motived by an improper motive, namely a desire to punish, exert their authority and seek revenge,” alleged Mr Pitter.
He suggested the simplest thing would have been for them to call the police.
The defendants had each removed their high-vis jackets as part of the determined chase and Sellers was heard falsely claiming to members of the public that the two men had assaulted someone and tried to stab them.
“What would be the purpose of such a lie other than to create a false justification for their own unlawful conduct in chasing the men,” posed Mr Pitter.
About three minutes into the chase Sellers was heard saying to Rowlands, “We’re getting this f…..r though’.
“It is plain he is talking about Barnes and in a malevolent way with a desire to punish,” he claimed.
When he has sight of the two men he shouts, “Where are you going to lads? Where are you running to?’
“Then shortly after, ‘Keep running lads’. This is plainly evidence of goading rather than a lawful pursuit to achieve a lawful detention.”
When closer to Mr Barnes he shouted, “that’s it mate, you’re going”.
When asked “where?” Sellers replies, “to f…g .prison. Where do you think?”
“Again we say more consistent with that desire to humiliate, taunt and punish than a lawful arrest,” claimed Mr Pitter.
Gartside took Mr Barnes down and Sellers shouted that he had “f…..whacked one of our guys over the head. Come on Brian. We’ll get him now, grab him, grab him.”
Mr Pitter suggested, “proper conclusion – not a man in control, he had lost it”.
The restraint lasted almost nine minutes and was captured on body-worn camera footage.
Within 40 seconds the “petrified” victim complained he could not breathe and repeated this several times and was naturally struggling.
“The response was to place a hand on his neck several times to exert further control. When he asked for the hand to be removed, he was told ‘no’.”
Gartside left to detain Mr Nevet and the restraint of Mr Barnes was continued by Sellers who was joined by Rowlands. He again pleaded that he “just can’t breathe” and struggled some more but more aggressive restraint was then applied by the two defendants.
Rowlands then made his comments about “putting him to sleep”.
Sellers rugby tackled Mr Nevet and restrained him. Fogarty replaced Sellers in restraining Mr Barnes which only ended when they began to express concern about his condition.
Once it was appreciated he was unconscious, attempts were made to assist him and the emergency services called.
By the time the ambulance service arrived CPR was being given to Mr Barnes, who had suffered a cardiac arrest.
His heart was successfully restarted at the scene but he died on December 2. He had suffered irreparable brain damage through lack of oxygen and died as a result of complications of his injuries.
Mr Pitter said that experts found that Spice may have made him more vulnerable to the effects of the chase and restraint and the effects of the chase made him more vulnerable to the physical and psychological stress caused by the restraint.
“The cardiac arrest was a direct consequence of being restrained and the struggling was a reaction to it and lack of oxygen.
“The effect is exhaustion of the body to the extent where the person becomes unconscious, stops breathing and the heart stops.
“The prosecution position is that the unlawful restraint was a cause of death. If that is right then the defendants are guilty of manslaughter as they participated in that.”
Mr Pitter claimed that the restraint “was prolonged and, in some respects, brutal.
There was a real lack of concern for him. He made several pleas about his condition all of which were ignored.
“There was a macho disregard for him and a proper conclusion is that they relished what they were doing in their purported exercise of power,” he claimed.
The case continues
