2009
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Re Siberry’s Application | 1 |
| Issue: Whether, where medical experts relied on by an investigator with no medical expertise were to give evidence at an inquest, the investigator should also be permitted to give evidence as to the medical issues to be canvassed by the medical experts. | |
| Re Jordan’s Application | 24 |
| Issue: Whether, where police were implicated in a death, there was a legitimate expectation that the Chief Constable would disclose to interested parties all documents submitted to the coroner, including those which the coroner did not deem relevant to the issues to be explored at the inquest. | |
| R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington; Youth Justice Board, Serco Home Affairs Ltd and Lancashire County Council (interested parties) | 29 |
| Issue: Whether a coroner should have made a ruling as to whether force used on a trainee in a secure training centre had been lawful; whether a fresh inquest was required. | |
| Roach and Roach v Home Office; Matthews v Home Office | 45 |
| Issue: Whether the costs associated with legal representation at an inquest could be recovered by way of costs in subsequent civil proceedings. | |
| A and Others’ Application (Nelson Witnesses) | 55 |
| Issue: Whether, where some risk to life was identified, the test for refusing anonymity of witnesses to an inquiry was that there was a ‘compelling justification’ for refusing anonymity or whether the decision should be a balancing exercise weighing up the risks to the witness against the interests of openness. | |
| R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon | 73 |
| Issue: Whether a coroner who left both short form and narrative verdicts to a jury in an inquest into a death in custody was required to direct them that, if they returned a short form verdict, they should append to it a short narrative giving their conclusions on the central factual issues. | |
| R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for Mid and North Shropshire and the Secretary of State for Justice; R (Calvert) v HM Coroner for Inner North London and the Secretary of State for Justice; R (Woods) v HM Coroner for Oxfordshire and the Secretary of State for Justice. | 81 |
| Issue: Whether a jury must record conclusions on events and matters that neither caused nor contributed to the cause of death to render an inquest compliant with Art 2 ECHR; whether a jury was permitted to return judgmental conclusions on factual matters causative of the death; whether neglect should have been left to a jury. | |
| Šilih v Slovenia | 117 |
| Issue: Whether the procedural obligation arising under Art 2 ECHR to investigate a death was separable from the substantive obligation to protect life, and hence capable of coming into play in respect of deaths which occurred prior to the date of ratification of the Convention. | |
| R (O’Connor) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon and Visser (intervener) | 149 |
| Issue: The standard of proof to be applied in considering a verdict of unlawful killing when insanity was properly raised on the evidence. | |
| Secretary of State for Defence v Catherine Smith and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Oxfordshire (interested party) and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (intervener) | 156 |
| Issue: Whether a British soldier was within the jurisdiction of the UK and hence protected by ECHR when serving in foreign territory but not in a UK base or hospital; whether the inquest into a soldier’s death in Iraq should comply with Art 2 ECHR. | |
| R (Ahmed) v HM Coroner for South and East Cumbria | 177 |
| Issue: Whether there was apparent bias in a coroner relying upon information provided to him by the police; whether a verdict of unlawful killing wrongly implicated the claimant; whether disclosure of key material should have been given to the claimant as a properly interested person. | |
| R (Allen) v HM Coroner Inner North London | 187 |
| Issue: Whether the Art 2 investigative obligation was only engaged where failures by state authorities caused the condition that caused the death; whether in an Art 2 inquest the coroner was obliged to explore issues that were not central to the cause of death. | |
| In the petition of Niven for judicial review | 194 |
| Issue: Whether a fatal accident inquiry was now required where a conviction had been overturned. | |
| R (Farah) v HM Coroner for Southampton and the New Forest | 220 |
| Issue: Whether a coroner had jurisdiction to add a judgment to a verdict; whether any judgment might include factual conclusions or opinions on matters unrelated to the stipulated issues of who the deceased was and the circumstances of death. | |
| R v Syed Shadat Ali | 228 |
| Issue: Whether the presence on the jury of a police officer from the same force as police witnesses giving identification evidence rendered the appellant’s trial unfair. | |
| R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v HM Coroner for Inner North London | 232 |
| Issue: How a coroner should exercise his discretion to permit the IPCC to attend a post-mortem which the coroner had directed. | |
| R (HM Coroner for Eastern District of London) v Secretary of State for Justice and Sutovic, Sutovic and Sutovic (interested parties) | 236 |
| Issue: Whether an exhumation licence should be granted by the Secretary of State where the necessary faculty had not yet been obtained from the Chancellor of the Diocese. | |
| Re McCaughey and Quinn’s application | 244 |
| Issue: Whether there was a freestanding procedural aspect of Art 2 requiring Art 2 compliant inquests in respect of deaths occurring before commencement of the Human Rights Act 1998. | |
| R (JL, by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) v Secretary of State for Justice | 247 |
| Issue: Whether the arrangements for an inquiry into a near death in custody were compliant with Art 2 ECHR. | |
| R (Dowler) v HM Coroner for North London | 264 |
| Issue: Whether a new inquest should be held before a different coroner where a properly interested person whose actions had been called into question was not notified of the inquest; whether there was an appearance of bias by the coroner. | |
| Lakey v Medway NHS Foundation Trust | 267 |
| Issue: Whether an NHS Trust was entitled to bury or cremate a corpse in its possession against the wishes of the deceased’s personal representative | |
| R (Friend, Bevan, Cooney, Cleworth and Harper) v (1) Greater Manchester Police Authority (2) Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police | 271 |
| Issue: Whether a police authority should be required to fund separate representation for police officers at an inquest. | |
| R (Jenkins) v HM Coroner for Portsmouth and South East Hampshire and Cameron and Finn (interested parties) | 277 |
| Issue: Whether a verdict of gross negligence manslaughter should have been returned where a person had complied with the deceased’s refusal to accept medical help; whether the coroner could reasonably have come to the conclusions he did on the evidence. | |
| My Care (UK) Ltd v HM Coroner for Coventry | 285 |
| Issue: Whether a verdict of neglect breached r42 Coroners Rules 1984 by attributing blame; whether it was permissible for an inquest verdict to name those responsible for the death. | |
| R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon | 287 |
| Issue: Whether a coroner’s direction to a jury in respect of short form and narrative verdicts was defective; whether a new inquest should be held. | |
| R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for Mid and North Shropshire and the Secretary of State for Justice | 294 |
| Issue: Whether in order to comply with the requirements of Art 2 ECHR a jury had to be permitted to record conclusions on facts or circumstances that were capable of having been a cause of or contributor to the death. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
