Butler v HM Coroner for the Black County District
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Beatson |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/6220/2009 |
| Date | 21 January 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 43 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: The Honourable Mr Justice Beatson
Case No: CO/6220/2009
MR J. RANDALL QC and MR J. QUIRKE (instructed by Waldrons Solicitors) for the Claimant
MR W. HOSKINS (instructed by Sandwell M.B.C.) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 18 December 2009 at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre
Mr Justice Beatson:
The claimants, Stephen and Ian Butler are brothers and directors of Need a Skip Ltd (“the company”). On 11 September 2006 one of the company's employees, Wayne Meylan, was killed when a Komatsu loader, driven by Roy Reid, another employee, backed over him at the Company's West Bromwich premises while he was crouched in the yard connecting electrical wire to a pump to pump water out of a manhole. The claimants challenge decisions made by the defendant, Mr Robin Balmain, Her Majesty's Coroner for the Black Country (“the coroner”), about the inquest into the death. It is common ground that the inquest is a “traditional” or “ Jamieson” inquest and not an “Article 2” or “ Middleton” inquest. A “traditional” or “ Jamieson” inquest considers “by what means” the deceased came by his death. In an “Article 2” or “ Middleton” inquest the issue is the accountability of state agents for a death occurring within their responsibility and a wider inquiry into the broad circumstances of the death may be required to satisfy Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. 1
The inquest was opened on 15 September 2006 and immediately adjourned pursuant to section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) because of investigations into the death by the police and the Health and Safety Executive (“the HSE”). In February 2009 the Crown Prosecution Service notified the coroner that it had decided not to charge anybody with manslaughter and, after considering the results of the police and HSE investigations, he began to make arrangements for the renewed hearing which was to start on 22 June.
The claimants challenge the coroner's decisions about the evidence that was to be disclosed to the claimants and the scope of the evidence to be called and what can properly be called in a Jamieson inquest, and the coroner's rejection of their application for an adjournment. They also submit that there is apparent bias on his part. Underlying the rival submissions by the parties is the question of whether the scope of inquiry in a Jamieson inquest is necessarily narrower than in a Middleton inquest and the circumstances in which matters such as system and methods of work and training may be explored.
The coroner decided that the evidence of two police officers who interviewed the claimants and the driver of the loader under caution in respect of a possible offence of manslaughter and the evidence of Mr Chater of Messrs Atkins, who prepared a report for the HSE, and of Mr Hitchcott, a HSE Inspector, should be adduced. This evidence was all largely concerned with the company's previous dealings with the HSE, defects
in the loader, and whether there had been breaches of the Health and Safety Act and Regulations.Mr Hitchcott's report deals with visits made to the West Bromwich premises in September 2005 about other equipment, when he observed an untrained employee driving the Komatsu loader, and a visit after the incident in which Mr Meylan died when he took possession of documents including risk assessments and the company's safety policies.
Mr Chater's report concerns the company's risk control measures for workplace transport activities at its premises. It is a review of “the practical measures and good practice which should have been in place to create a safe site before the accident”. It is based on a site visit, a report by the HSE in 2006 on the loader's mechanical condition and safety devices fitted to it, and the police witness statements and other documentation: paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2.
Mr Chater stated (paragraph 8.3) that the company “had a health and safety policy in place which, although not ideal, had it been implemented would have reduced the likelihood of the accident taking place”. He also stated that “suitable and sufficient risk assessments had not been undertaken”. He considered (paragraph 8.7) that “the lack of induction training, the lack of risk assessments and the failure to promulgate the HS policy all contributed to a lack of safety culture throughout the company”. He stated (paragraph 8.8) that the directors of the company “did not fulfil their responsibility under the company's health and safety policy”, and “did not communicate that policy to their employees in general or to their supervisory staff in particular” or ensure that it was communicated. He also stated (paragraph 8.9) that “although Need-a-Skip's practices fell short of health and safety good practice, the company is certainly not unique in the industry, but there are examples of good practice to be found”. He considered (paragraph 8.10) the accident “should have been foreseeable and with appropriate management structures could have been avoided”.
The coroner wishes to adduce this evidence because he considers a verdict of unlawful killing might properly be left to the jury in this case. In determining what evidence should be adduced, he also took into account the possibilities of; (a) a narrative verdict recording the factual causes of the incident, and (b) a report by him to the relevant authorities under rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 (1984) SI No. 552 (“the 1984 Rules”).
Mr Randall QC, on behalf of the claimants, challenged the coroner's decisions on a number of grounds. The first was that in the circumstances of this case no verdict of unlawful killing could properly be left to the jury. He argued that the coroner fell into error in wishing to consider evidence, in particular that contained in the reports of the experts, about alleged breaches of Health and Safety Regulations in the five years prior to the incident. For unlawful killing on the basis of gross negligence manslaughter to be proved against the company or an individual director it had to be shown that an identified individual who was a director had by an act or omission of criminal negligence caused the death of the deceased. Moreover, the individual acts of employees cannot be aggregated into a composite act of gross negligence. Mr Randall accepted that it might have been possible for the coroner to reach the conclusions that he did, but argued that he erred in failing to direct himself as to these requirements. Initially he had submitted that, on the evidence before him, they could not be satisfied.
Mr Randall's second submission is that the coroner erred in justifying the scope of the inquiry on the ground that it would enable the jury to consider returning a narrative verdict or because of the possible need to refer the matter to the relevant authorities under rule 43 of the 1984 Rules. He also submitted that the coroner wrongfully refused to disclose evidence and then to adjourn the inquest to enable the claimants and their legal representatives to deal with statements and evidence disclosed shortly before the hearing of the resumed inquest was to commence.
The complaint of non-disclosure relates to the initial non-disclosure of the majority of the witness statements, including the statements of all direct witnesses of the incident, and of the Appendices to Mr Chater's report. This was on the ground that there was no obligation under the 1984 Rules to disclose them and because of what was referred to as an “embargo” by the HSE. Mr Chater considered thirty-six witness statements. Two of these were initially disclosed, and a further 10 were disclosed on 16 June.
These proceedings were launched in Leeds on 18 June, two working days before the start of the resumed inquest. An application for urgent interim relief restraining the coroner from convening the inquest was granted by Silber J. On 25 August the claimants applied to amend the grounds to include a complaint of apparent bias on the part of the coroner. The reasons for this were stated to be the coroner's consultation with the HSE about disclosure of documents, and his intention, notwithstanding the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service, to consider with the jury a verdict of unlawful killing. The claimants argue that for these reasons the inquest should take place before a different coroner. On 31 August Langstaff J. granted permission and ordered the case to be transferred to Birmingham.
The interim relief granted by Silber J and the further disclosures that have been made by the coroner since the institution of these proceedings mean that the complaints about the refusal to adjourn and advance disclosure have been overtaken by events. The present hearing was mainly concerned with the scope of the evidence to be adduced from the witnesses and the allegation of apparent bias.
On behalf of the coroner, Mr Hoskins submitted that in a “Jamieson” inquest the coroner's inquiry may go beyond what is needed for a narrow verdict of “by what means” the deceased came by his death. It can include the causes of the incident, including questions of system, training, methods of work, and safety equipment if causally relevant. He submitted that it is for the coroner to decide whether a particular line of inquiry involves a chain of causation which is too remote to form a proper part of the investigation. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worcestershire County Council (First Claimant) Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board (Second Claimant) v Hm Coroner for the County of Worcestershire
...alone, of their duty under Article 2 to take all reasonable steps to protect the child's life". 62 In The Queen (on the application of Butler) v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin) the court was dealing with a Jamieson type inquest rather than one which engaged ......
-
Joy Dove v HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool
...report. However, that power does not dictate the scope of an inquest ( R (Butler) v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin), para 74). In my judgment, an ancillary power to make a PFD report does not imply that a coroner becomes the guardian of the public interest ......
-
Pounder v HM Coroner for the North & South Districts of Durham & Darlington
...Coroner ex parte Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139) or whose correspondence had become inappropriately combative (eg R (Butler) v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin)). However, the judgment of Blake J does not suggest that the involvement of the Coroner in the jud......
-
Catherine McDonnell v HM Assistant Coroner for West London
...at [31] where Mitting J stated that in such cases a narrative verdict should be limited to the means of death and R(Butler) v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin) at [75]. (iii) The coroner's approach to the need for an ECG 43 In relation to the adequacy of the c......