2013
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Hartshorne v Gardner | 1 |
| Issue: Whether a body should be released to the deceased’s father or mother for disposal. | |
| Markham v HM Coroner Greater London | 4 |
| Issue: Whether new medical evidence as to cause of death required a fresh inquest to be held. | |
| McMahon’s Application | 5 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 ECHR required an inquest where there had already been a criminal trial and manslaughter conviction. | |
| R (Shaw) v HM Coroner and HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for Leicester City and S Leicestershire and others | 10 |
| Issue: Whether inquest flawed by delay, bias and/or inadequate procedures or investigation; whether the deceased consented to medical procedure. | |
| R (Lagos) v HM Coroner for London (Austin as Interested Party) | 34 |
| Issue: Whether a verdict of suicide should have been returned; whether the procedure adopted at an inquest was unfair. | |
| R (Sreedharan) v HM Coroner for Greater Manchester | 42 |
| Issue: Whether admission of extensive character evidence went beyond the legitimate scope of a jury inquest; whether the verdict of suicide ought to have been left to the jury. | |
| Carroll, Woodhouse and Woodhouse v Coroners Court at Auckland and New Zealand Police | 52 |
| Issue: Whether a finding of contribution to a death by omission to call emergency services was reasonably made; whether statutory provisions and natural justice required: (i) notice of the inquest where conduct was likely to be called into question; and/or (ii) notice of and a reasonable opportunity to respond to a proposed adverse comment to be given. | |
| Attorney General’s Application for Judicial Review | 67 |
| Issue: Whether Coroners in Northern Ireland have jurisdiction to hold an inquest into a stillbirth. | |
| R v Patel | 70 |
| Issue: Whether the offence of wilfully neglecting a person lacking capacity under s44 Mental Capacity Act 2005 required causation of injury to be established; whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury as to the meaning of ‘wilfully’. | |
| Rogers and Rogers v Hoyle | 75 |
| Issue: Whether a report produced by the Air Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport was admissible as evidence in civil proceedings. | |
| R (Mousa and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) | 93 |
| Issue: Whether the Iraq Historic Allegations Team was sufficiently independent; whether a public inquiry should be established into allegations against the British forces in Iraq. | |
| R (Mousa and others) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) | 122 |
| Issue: The form and process that IHAT inquiries should take where no prosecutions were to be brought into deaths alleged against the British forces in Iraq. | |
| CM v Executor of the Estate of EJ (deceased) and HM Coroner for S London | 132 |
| Issue: Whether a declaratory order should be made permitting blood/tissue sampling of the deceased for the benefit of a third party. | |
| Smith and others v The Ministry of Defence; Ellis v The Ministry of Defence; Allbutt and others v The Ministry of Defence | 135 |
| Issue: Whether claims which raised fundamental issues about the duties of care owed to British serviceman engaged in active operations overseas pursuant to, inter alia, Art 2 ECHR should be allowed to proceed to trial. | |
| R (Duffy) v HM Deputy Coroner for Worcestershire (Worcestershire Acute Hospitals Trust as Interested Party) | 172 |
| Issue: Whether the Coroner was correct to refuse to adjourn an inquest in circumstances where the Coroner’s appointed expert lacked current experience. | |
| Worcestershire County Council and Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board v HM Coroner for the County of Worcestershire | 179 |
| Issue: Whether Individual Management Reviews and Information Reports, prepared for a Serious Case Review following the death of a young person in state care, have public interest immunity from disclosure at inquest. | |
| Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London | 193 |
| Issue: Whether “properly interested persons” in an inquest should be “interested parties” in related judicial review proceedings. | |
| R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Justice and others | 204 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State for Justice had a common law duty to consult widely as to how and where the remains of Richard III should be buried. | |
| Matthews v Collins (t/a Herbert Collins & Sons) and others | 211 |
| Issue: Whether it was unreasonable to agree to disposal of histology samples in an industrial disease claim. | |
| R (Antoniou) v (1) Central And North West London NHS Foundation Trust, (2) Secretary of State for Health, (3) NHS England | 224 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to hold an independent investigation into the death of someone detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, in addition to an inquest, breached Art 2 ECHR; whether the lack of an inquiry such as occurred in relation to deaths in prison or police custody breached Art 14 together with Art 2 and/or the Equality Act 2010. | |
| Greenough v The Ministry of Justice | 247 |
| Issue: Whether the Ministry of Justice had unlawfully refused public funding for representation at an inquest. | |
| Sarjantson v Chief Constable of Humberside | 252 |
| Issue: Whether the operational duty under Art 2 ECHR to protect those who were at real and immediate risk of death extended to the protection of unidentified or unidentifiable individuals. | |
| Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London | 258 |
| Issue: Whether the Coroner correctly approached the question of whether a PII certificate should be upheld. | |
| Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall v HM Coroner for Plymouth, Torbay and S Devon | 269 |
| Issue: Whether a question regarding the adequacy of police procedures should be left to a jury in the absence of evidence as to appropriate standards; whether the Court should intervene in an inquest that was still proceeding. | |
| Davey v HM Coroner for Leicestershire | 275 |
| Issue: Whether to review a decision not to empanel a jury; whether the Coroner’s reasons were adequate. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
