2010

Cases Reported

Hemsworth’s Application	1
Issue: The appropriate test for determining whether an issue required investigation at an inquest; whether the coroner should recuse himself because of an appearance of bias.

Ramsbottom’s Application	9
Issue: Whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that certain evidence related to the death such that investigation of that evidence was required at the inquest; whether the coroner should recuse himself because of an appearance of bias.

Jordan’s Application	12
Issue: Whether the coroner should recuse himself because of actual bias or an appearance of bias

R (Pounder) (No 2) v HM Coroner for the North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington, and The Youth Justice Board, Serco Home Affairs Ltd and Lancashire County Council (interested parties)	38
Issue: Whether, where a second inquest had been ordered to take place, a coroner should recuse himself from presiding over that inquest because of an appearance of bias; whether the coroner could be required to appoint an ad hoc deputy of a particular sort to preside over the second inquest.

Butler v HM Coroner for the Black Country District	50
Issue: Whether the scope of inquiry in a non-Art 2 inquest was limited by r36 Coroners Rules 1984; whether the coroner had adopted a correct approach to the elements of gross negligence manslaughter; whether the coroner’s approach to disclosure and the evidence gave rise to an appearance of unconscious bias.

R (Humberstone) v Legal Services Commission and HM Coroner for South Yorkshire (West)	64
Issue: Whether public funding for legal representation at the inquest should have been refused to a parent of the deceased accused of causing or contributing to the death.

Jones v HM Coroner South London and Dr Virdi (interested party)	80
Issue: Whether there had been insufficiency of inquiry where the scope of an inquest had been limited to the last link in the chain of causation; whether a new inquest should be held.

R (Heseltine) v HM Coroner for Greater Manchester	87
Issue: Whether permission should be given for a judicial review of the coroner’s refusal to sit with a jury.

R (Duggan) v HM Coroner for North London	89
Issue: Whether a fresh inquest should be held where new evidence cast serious doubt upon the findings of the original inquest.

R (Fraser) v HM Coroner for North West Wales	93
Issue: Whether a new inquest should be held for the sole purpose of correcting the entry in the register of deaths.

The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Application	97
Issue: Whether a coroner could disclose redacted documents to interested persons before determining the scope of an inquest and the documents’ direct relevance, where the Chief Constable wished to bring an application for public interest immunity (PII) in respect of those documents.

Rabone and Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust	105
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

R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence and another	119
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.

Connah v (1) Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust (2) HM Coroner for Greater Manchester (3) HM Coroner for Plymouth (4) HM Coroner for Cornwall	182
Issue: Whether coroners had refused or neglected to hold an inquest that ought to be held.

R (Patel) v Lord Chancellor and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London (interested party)	188
Issue: Whether the decision of the Lord Chancellor to refuse exceptional funding was reasonable and rational.

R (Hair) v HM Coroner for Staffordshire and interested parties (1) Dr Logan (2) South Staffordshire PCT (3) Secretary of State for Justice	197
Issue: Whether a failure to call relevant witnesses and alleged inadequacies in the summing up were such that an inquest had not fulfilled the investigative obligation under Art 2 ECHR; whether the prohibition in r40 Coroners Rules 1984 on addressing the coroner or jury as to the facts was incompatible with Art 2 ECHR.

R (McLeish) v HM Coroner Inner North London	202
Issue: Whether a failure to disclose post-mortem findings in a timely manner was a breach of the common law, r57 Coroners Rules 1984 or Art 8 ECHR.

R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London	211
Issue: Whether the power under r17 Coroners Rules 1984 to direct that “the public” be excluded from an inquest in the interest of national security permitted a coroner to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives.

R (Evans) v HM Coroner for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan	217
Issue: Whether permission should be given to judicially review the adequacy of a coroner’s reasoning; whether r42 Coroners Rules 1984 and s11 Coroners Act 1988 prevented the coroner using the name of the perpetrator in the summing up supporting her verdict of unlawful killing

R (Humberstone) v Legal Services Commission and HM Coroner for South Yorkshire (West)	221
Issue: Whether public funding for legal representation at the inquest should have been refused to a parent of the deceased accused of causing or contributing to the death; the scope of the state’s investigative obligation under Art 2.