2021
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v Romania | 1 |
| Issue: The circumstances in which a serious injury in a car crash gives rise to an investigative obligation under Arts 2, 3 and/or 8 ECHR; the requirements for an effective investigation under Art 2; whether there was a breach of Art 6 from the failure to examine a civil claim joined to criminal proceedings when the latter were discontinued and from the length of proceedings. | |
| Brennan & Others v (1) City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, (2) Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust | 54 |
| Issue: Whether the way in which the body of a deceased family member was treated after death fell within the scope of an individual’s Article 8 right to respect for their private and family life. | |
| Smiljanić v Croatia | 74 |
| Issue: Whether successive failures to prosecute and sanction a serial driving offender was a breach of the substantive obligation under Art 2; whether the passing of a sentence for reckless driving below the statutory minimum, combined with the lengthy delay in enforcing that sentence, was a breach of the procedural obligation under Art 2. | |
| Mary Patricia Farrell v Senior Coroner for North East Hampshire & Amanda Burden (Interested Party) | 93 |
| Issue: Whether, under s13 Coroners Act 1988, the interests of justice required a fresh inquest where there was no evidence to support the claimant’s suspicions of foul play and no realistic possibility of a fresh inquest reaching a different conclusion. | |
| R (Wandsworth Borough Council) v Senior Coroner for Inner West London | 103 |
| Issue: Whether a causal link could properly be inferred between the presence of asbestos in a building and the deceased’s subsequent development of mesothelioma, where there was no evidence of the deceased having been exposed to that asbestos. | |
| R (Lawal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 109 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department could lawfully remove a potential material witness to a death in custody, in circumstances where their evidence had not been secured and a coroner had not made a decision as to whether they were required to give evidence at the inquest hearing; whether the Secretary of State’s failure to have in place a policy framework, which made clear provision for a proper investigation into witnesses to a death in custody prior to any enforcement action being taken, was a breach of Art 2 procedural obligations. | |
| R (Morahan) v Assistant Coroner for West London | 126 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 ECHR was engaged following the death of a voluntary psychiatric inpatient caused by a drug overdose taken in the community. | |
| Dove v (1) Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool (2) Dr Shareen Rahman | 154 |
| Issue: Whether a fresh inquest was required due to insufficiency of inquiry at common law or under Art 2 ECHR, or due to fresh evidence that had arisen since the inquest was concluded. | |
| R (Bilski) v Assistant Coroner for Inner West London | 168 |
| Issue: Whether a refusal to adjourn to obtain alternative expert evidence was reasonable; whether the answer to ‘how’ the deceased came by her death need be recorded in ‘box 3’ of the Record of Inquest if recorded elsewhere on the Record. | |
| R (Mays and Mays) v Senior Coroner for Kingston upon Hull | 170 |
| Issue: Whether a fresh inquest was required where relevant information had been intentionally withheld from the first inquest. | |
| R (Nguyen) v Assistant Coroner for Inner West London | 178 |
| Issue: Whether, under s13 Coroners Act 1988, it was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another coronial investigation should be held where (i) the coroner had decided not to hear evidence from the parents’ expert; (ii) fresh expert evidence was credible and relevant to an issue of significance and (iii) allegations of coronial bias were raised. | |
| In the matter of an application by Margaret McQuillan for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) (Nos 1, 2 and 3) | 194 |
| Issue: Whether the court had temporal jurisdiction to determine pre-commencement complaints alleging violations of Arts 2 & 3 ECHR; whether new evidential material coming to light after an investigation was closed revived the Art 2 & Art 3 investigative obligations; whether proposed investigations by the PSNI lacked the necessary practical independence pursuant to Arts 2 and 3 ECHR. | |
| R (Earl & Earl) v Senior Coroner for East Sussex | 243 |
| Issue: Whether a fresh inquest was required where evidence of unlawful killing had not been considered at the first inquest. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
