2007
|
|
Cases Reported |
| R v (1) Hickinbottom, (2) Wood and (3) Clark | 1 |
| Issue: Whether, in bringing a charge of gross negligence manslaughter, it was necessary for the Crown to adduce evidence of the standard of care to be applied to police officers | |
| In the petition of Mohamed Moneim Al Fayed | 3 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 ECHR required that a public inquiry should be held in Scotland into the death of the petitioner’s son in France. | |
| R (Paul & Others) v Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household & Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey; R (Al Fayed) v Same. | 17 |
| Issue: Whether the deputy coroner had jurisdiction to sit as deputy coroner for the Queen’s household; whether a jury should be called. | |
| Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Christine Hurst, The Lord Chancellor intervening | 29 |
| Issue: Whether, where the death in question occurred prior to the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force, a coroner was obliged by Art 2 ECHR to resume an adjourned inquest under s16(3) Coroners Act 1988. | |
| Jordan v Lord Chancellor and another; McCaughey v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. | 44 |
| Issue: Whether the inquest verdict of unlawful killing was available under Northern Irish legislation; whether the police had a continuing obligation to disclose documents to the coroner. | |
| R (Main) v Minister for Legal Aid and (1) Network Rail (2) First Great Western Ltd (3) Rail Safety and Standards Board (interested parties) | 59 |
| Issue: Whether exceptional funding under the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be provided for representation at an inquest. | |
| Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police | 69 |
| Issue: Whether Art 2 ECHR imposed a duty on the police to protect a witness who was being threatened, whether they were in breach of this duty, whether any breach caused the witness’s death, and the appropriate award of compensation | |
| R (Independent Police Complaints Commission) v Chief Constable of West Mercia; and PC Walton (interested party) | 95 |
| Issue: Whether disciplinary proceedings against a police officer were an abuse of process because the issue in the disciplinary proceedings had been resolved, in the officer’s favour, at a coroner’s inquest. | |
| Ramsahai and Others v Netherlands | 103 |
| Issue: Whether the circumstances of a fatal shooting by police amounted to a violation of Art 2; whether the words “absolutely necessary” in Art 2(2) indicated a stricter test of necessity than the words “necessary in a democratic society” in Arts 8(2) and 11(2); whether the investigation into the shooting was sufficiently effective and independent. | |
| R (W) v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for the County of Northamptonshire; and (1) Mr Perfect, (2) The Youth Justice Board, and (3) Rebound (interested parties) | 142 |
| Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could properly conclude that a reasonably prudent person in the position of a chief executive would have foreseen a serious and obvious risk of death in the circumstances. | |
| R (Cash) v HM Coroner for the County of Northamptonshire; and Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police (interested party) | 147 |
| Issue: Whether, where there was evidence on which the jury could reject the account given by police officers who had restrained the deceased, there was sufficient evidence for a verdict of unlawful killing to be left to the jury; whether the coroner should have given reasons for her refusal to leave that verdict to the jury; whether the jury should have been directed to return a narrative verdict embodying a judgmental conclusion on the core disputed factual issues. | |
| R (Pereira) v HM Coroner for Inner South London | 160 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner had a discretion to adjourn an inquest pending criminal prosecution where there was “reason to the contrary” under s16(1)(b) Coroners Act 1988; whether any discretion had been properly exercised. | |
| R (Bennett) v HM Coroner for Inner South London; and Officers A and B, and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Interested Parties) | 163 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner had erred in her direction to the jury as to the training given to police officers that they were only to fire weapons when absolutely necessary; whether an open verdict had truly been left to the jury; the test to be applied by a coroner in considering what verdicts to leave to the jury. | |
| R (Al Skeini and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence (The Redress Trust and others intervening) | 168 |
| Issue: Whether the deaths of six Iraqi citizens in Iraq occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK so as to fall within the scope of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act 1998; if so, whether there had been an adequate inquiry into those deaths for the purposes of Arts 2 and 3. | |
| R (Jones) v Legal Services Commission | 197 |
| Issue: Whether the LSC’s refusal to grant exceptional funding for advocacy at an inquest was irrational where agents of state had not been involved in the death. | |
| R (JL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 202 |
| Issue: Whether the circumstances of a failed suicide attempt by a detainee in a Young Offender’s Institution were such that the state was obliged to conduct an enquiry satisfying the minimum standards required by Art 2 ECHR; whether it was for the victim to establish some arguable case before an enhanced investigation was required. | |
| In the matter of Officer L and others | 214 |
| Issue: Whether witnesses to an inquiry should be granted anonymity on grounds of their fears for their safety; whether there was a real and immediate risk to life; whether a material increase to the risk was required | |
| Re LM (Reporting restrictions: coroner’s inquest) | 221 |
| Issue: Whether there should be reporting restrictions on an inquest into the death of a child in order to protect a sibling’s identity; whether the principles stated by the House of Lords in respect of anonymity in criminal proceedings of a person who was neither a party nor a witness were applicable to all courts of record. | |
| R v Kennedy | 234 |
| Issue: Whether there could be a finding of manslaughter where a person supplied a class A controlled drug to another who subsequently died as a result of voluntarily self-administering the drug. | |
| The Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London v Channel 4 Television Corporation; The Ritz Hotel Ltd (Interested Party) | 239 |
| Issue: Whether a witness summons under CPR 34.4 should be granted requiring production to a coroner’s inquest of confidential documents provided to journalists. | |
| R (Bicknell) v HM Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull | 244 |
| Issue: Whether, in the light of the medical evidence, the coroner had erred in not holding an inquest into the death of a resident in a nursing home. | |
| R (Main) v Minister for Legal Aid and (1) Network Rail (2) First Great Western Ltd (3) Rail Safety and Standards Board (interested parties) | 249 |
| Issue: Whether exceptional funding under the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be provided for representation at an inquest. | |
| R (Paul and the Ritz Hotel Ltd) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London | 259 |
| Issue: Whether, where witnesses could not be found or could not be compelled to attend an inquest, a coroner was entitled to admit documentary evidence by reading their statements or whether those statements had to be “introduced” or proved by a witness being called. | |
| R (Paul and the Ritz Hotel Ltd) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London | 270 |
| Issue: Whether, where witnesses could not be found or could not be compelled to attend an inquest, a coroner was entitled to admit documentary evidence by reading their statements or whether those statements had to be “introduced” or proved by a witness being called. | |
| Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust | 278 |
| Issue: Whether the correct threshold to establish a breach of Art 2 ECHR in respect of the death of a detained patient following alleged clinical negligence was gross negligence of a kind sufficient to sustain a charge of manslaughter or, alternatively, failing to take measures to avoid a real and immediate risk to life. | |
| Kontrova v Slovakia | 286 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to deal effectively with allegations of assault by a husband amounted to a breach of Arts 2 and 8 ECHR in the light of the husband’s subsequent murder of the family’s children, and whether there had been consequential breaches of Arts 6 and 13 ECHR | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
