2012

Cases Reported

Rabone and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust	1
Issue: Whether the state was under an operational obligation under Art 2 ECHR to voluntary patients who were at real and immediate risk of death; whether parents of the deceased were victims for the purposes of s7(7) Human Rights Act 1998

Medihani v HM Coroner for Inner South District of Greater London	22
Issue: Whether the decision of the coroner to not resume an inquest on the basis that there was not an arguable case that the State had breached its operational duty under Art 2 was unreasonable; whether the coroner’s decision was unlawful.

LePage v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner South London; Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Dr Brennan as interested parties.	31
Issue: Whether the coroner had properly exercised her discretion not to call an expert witness; whether the coroner should have left possible, as well as probable, causes of death to the jury.

Allman v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for West Sussex	39
Issue: Whether the decision of the coroner not to accord the applicant status as a properly interested person was unlawful.

Reynolds v UK	45
Issue: Whether the state violated its obligation under Arts 13 and 2 ECHR by failing to provide a mother an effective mechanism for determination of civil liability following the death of her adult son.

R (Cubells) v Independent Police Complaints Commission	56
Issue: Whether the IPCC had failed in its statutory obligations to investigate a complaint regarding a police investigation into a death associated with clinical negligence in a hospital.

Re McCaughey’s Application (Leave Stage) (No 2)	60
Issue: Whether a coroner should admit potentially relevant similar fact evidence; whether evidence in relation to a different event that went only to a witnesses’ credibility should be admitted; whether judicial review should intervene prior to the conclusion of inquest proceedings.

R (Rowe) v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton; Bedfordshire Police	65
Issue: Whether a challenge to a coroner’s refusal to hold an Art 2 compliant inquest should be determined under the ‘Wednesbury principles’ of reasonableness and rationality, or whether it was the duty of a judge to consider afresh whether or not Art 2 was arguably engaged.

R (Sreedharan) v HM Coroner for Greater Manchester	69
Issue: Whether the scope of an inquest had been improperly widened in a way that was prejudicial to the claimant.

Alexander v UK	73
Issue: Whether, where a settlement had been reached between the parties, an application alleging that a delay to holding an inquiry into a death was a breach of procedural rights under Art 2 ECHR should now be struck out.

R (Secretary of State for Justice) v HM Coroner for Eastern District of West Yorkshire; BK and others (interested parties)	76
Issue: Whether unlawful killing by murder or gross negligence manslaughter should be left to a jury following a prison suicide; whether the knowledge of staff collectively rather than that of individuals was sufficient to establish the elements of gross negligence manslaughter.

Claire Selwood v Durham County Council, Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust	85
Issue: Whether there was an arguable duty of care to a social worker employed by a local authority who was attacked by an informal patient allowed leave from hospital in light of joint working arrangements; whether there was an arguable claim under Art 2 ECHR.

Laing v John Poyser Solicitors	95
Issue: Whether an injunction should be granted to prevent a cremation being arranged by those currently in possession of a body.

R (Jenkins) v HM Coroner Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys	97
Issue: Whether the coroner’s summing up and directions to the jury on the finding of suicide was adequate; whether insufficient evidence as to the deceased’s state of mind had been adduced.

R (Wilkinson) v HM Coroner for Manchester South	101
Issue: Whether evidence of the commission of the criminal offence of causing death by careless driving contrary to s2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was capable of justifying a verdict of “unlawful killing”.

Kent County Council v HM Coroner for the County of Kent	110
Issue: Whether shortcomings by social services gave rise to arguable breach of a general or operational duty under Art 2 ECHR so as to require a proactive enhanced investigation into the death of a child; whether the coroner had given adequate reasons for his decision; whether the inquest should be held with a jury.

Re Jordan’s Application for Judicial Review; Re RUC and PSNI Officers’ applications for Judicial Review	116
Issue: Whether exceptional circumstances existed so as to justify hearing an appeal against a coroner’s procedural ruling during an inquest; whether the level of risk required anonymity to be granted to police officer witnesses pursuant to the state’s Art 2 ECHR obligations.

Re Gribben’s Application	134
Issue: Whether leave should be given for judicial review where there were alleged deficits in the exploration of evidence, the summing up, the issues left to the jury and the jury directions in an Art 2 inquest following shootings by the military.

The Attorney General v (1) HM Coroner South Yorkshire (West) (2) HM Coroner West Yorkshire (West)	143
Issue: Whether, given the emergence of fresh evidence, the interest of justice required linked inquests to be set aside and further inquests held.