HM Senior Coroner for the County of Cumbria v Ian Smith, HM Former Senior Coroner for South and East Cumbria
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Burnett,Mr Justice Holroyde |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2465 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/1691/2015 |
| Date | 22 July 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2465 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Burnett
Mr Justice Holroyde
CO/1691/2015
Miss Alison Hewitt (instructed by Messrs Weightmans) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
On 12 December 2012, Poppi Iris Worthington was certified dead at Furness General Hospital. An ambulance had been called to her home just before 6 O'clock in the morning at the instigation of her parents. Poppi was 13 months old.
The post mortem examination conducted on behalf of the coroner suggested that some time before her death, perhaps weeks, Poppi had sustained injuries and that shortly before her death she suffered acute injuries. Her injuries and their causes were examined by a raft of medical experts, who in due course gave evidence before Jackson J in High Court Family Division proceedings which were concerned with the welfare and future of Poppi's siblings. There was a fact-finding hearing in the course of which the judge made findings relating to the cause of the injuries. The judge concluded that the cause of death itself was unascertained.
His judgment, given on 28 March 2014, is currently subject to embargo and thus is not in the public domain. One of the reasons for that embargo has been to avoid any possibility of prejudicing criminal proceedings. There are orders in place in the Family Court to protect from publication the identity of Poppi's siblings and mother, but not her father. The order relating to the judgment prohibits its publication pro tem, but the judge envisages that at some stage his fact-finding conclusions will be made available. The order relating to the children and their mother is a prohibition against publication of material specifically set out in that order, or tending to lead to the identification of the children or their mother.
The circumstances of the death are such that an inquest had to be held. However, the coroner faced difficulties in reconciling his duty to conduct a thorough public inquest into the death of this child with the parallel Family Court proceedings and the concomitant restriction on using the judgment publicly at an inquest. There was also a continuing police investigation.
An inquest was held on 21 October 2014. No evidence was called. The coroner indicated that he had taken account of and adopted the factual findings made by the judge. He had been provided with a copy of the judgment, but was unable to refer to those findings. So it was that no evidence was put into the public domain concerning the circumstances in which Poppi died. The record of the inquest noted that the cause of death was "unascertained" and that she had died at the hospital. It states the names and addresses of both parents and for that reason its content cannot be published because of the Family Court order. The part of the record which is headed "How, when and where the deceased came by his or her death" has been left blank.
This is an application to quash the inquisition and for an order for a new inquest. The application is made by the newly appointed Senior Coroner for Cumbria under the authority of the Solicitor General acting for the Attorney General, pursuant to section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013. That provides:
"(1)This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner ('the coroner concerned') either—
(a) that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest [or an investigation] which ought to be held; or
(b) where an inquest [or an investigation] has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that [an investigation (or as the case may be, another investigation)] should be held.
(2) The High Court may—
(a) order an [investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009] to be held into the death either-
(i) by the coroner concerned; or
(ii)by [a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner in the same coroner area];
(b) …
(c) where an inquest has been held, quash [any inquisition on, or determination or finding made at] that inquest."
The Senior Coroner for Cumbria in post at the end of 2014, who conducted the inquest, has since retired. He takes a neutral stance in these proceedings and does not oppose the application. He has provided the court with a helpful summary of his approach in this unusual and difficult case. It is clear that he proceeded with a view to balancing his obligations under the Coroners Act 2009 with the reality that he could not refer to the content of the Family Court judgment because of the embargo. It is clear from his statement that he was particularly mindful that much time had passed since the sad death of Poppi.
Miss Hewitt, who appears for the new coroner this morning to pursue the application, has indicated that the legal representatives of all those involved in the inquest indicated at the pre-inquest review that they agreed with the coroner's approach, save for the representative of the Chief Constable who would have preferred the matter to be adjourned. I should note that the chief constable supports this application.
The coroner hearing the inquest had regard to guidance issued by the Chief Coroner on cases in which the Family Court has made factual findings regarding the death of a child.
For reasons which I will briefly explain, in my judgment this is a clear case in which a fresh inquest should be held. However, I would record my sympathy for the coroner in trying to contend with the very difficult position in which he found himself.
A coroner is required by section 1 of the 2009 Act to investigate deaths where he has reason to suspect that the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, that the cause of death is unknown or that the deceased died in custody. Sections 5 and 10 of the 2009 Act, as material, provide:
" 5 Matters to be ascertained
(1) The purpose of an investigation under this Part into a person's death is to ascertain—
(a)who the deceased was;
(b)how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death;
(c)the particulars (if any) required by the 1953 Act to be registered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re W (Children)
...under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Part 1. The Court's judgment is publicly available as HM Senior Coroner for the County of Cumbria v HM Former Senior Coroner for South and East Cumbria [2015] EWHC 2465 (Admin). 18 On behalf of the media organisations, Ms Caoilfhionn Gallagher informed t......
-
F v Cumbria County Council and Others
...acting for the Attorney General. On 22 July 2015, the Divisional Court (Burnett LJ and Holroyde J) granted the application: [2015] EWHC 2465 (Admin), saying that: "The effect of the procedure followed by the coroner in this case was… to take all the evidence in private. It should not be fo......
-
F v Cumbria County Council and Others
...has not yet been an effective Coroner's inquest, and the Divisional Court has by its order of 22 July 2015 ordered a fresh inquest: [2015] EWHC 2465 (Admin). It was not possible for this court to publish wider information at an earlier stage because of considerations relating to possible c......