Police Law Blog European Decisions Statutory Materials

Inquests, Coroners and Secrets: the latest word

Senior Coroners still smarting from being described as holding “a relatively lower judicial office” by Mr Justice Singh in the Norfolk Coroner v AAIB case last month have now been dealt a second blow by Cranston J when he made it very clear in Secretary of State for the Home Dept v Senior Coroner for Surrey [2016] EWHC 3001 (Admin) that not only are Senior Coroners, as a category, not among those able to see sensitive material related to issues of national security, but that the Secretary of State can rely upon the assertion of a general policy not to provide Coroners with such material and so does not have to provide any evidence that disclosure to the particular Coroner will in itself result in a real risk of serious harm to national security.

Determining the scope of an Art 2 Inquest: the need for an arguable contribution

In a case which serves as a reminder that an inquest should not be seen as a substitute for a public inquiry, the Admin. Court in R (Speck) v HM Coroner for York & (1) NHS England (2) MEDACS (Interested Parties) [2016] EWHC 6 has held that, where a coroner conducting an Art 2 inquest decides that a factor could not even arguably be said to have made any real contribution to the death, then there is no discretion, or indeed power, to investigate that issue. Coroners’ investigatory powers arise from their statutory duty under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.5 and their discretion is limited to investigating only those factors that might arguably have contributed to a death. It would be “wrong in principle” to “go into issues of policy and resources with which an inquest should not be concerned”.

Low threshold for an inquest jury

  • An inquest jury should have been called where a vulnerable witness fell ill and died in a police station.
  • The requirement for a jury where death results from the act or omission of a police officer is a ‘low threshold’.
  • The threshold can be cleared by suspicion that the police could or should have done more to prevent the death of someone who ‘needed looking after’.

Police duty of care to witnesses

  • The taking of witness statements by the police and the making of applications for witness summons’ falls within the core immunity in Hill;
  • Such actions do not demonstrate a voluntary assumption by the police of a particular duty of care to the maker of the statement;
  • Article 8 provides no greater protection than article 2 and it will be difficult for a Claimant to succeed only on the former.