HM Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London v The Family of Mr Daniel Whitworth

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Holroyde,Mr Justice Green
Judgment Date28 November 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] EWHC 3201 (Admin)
Docket NumberCO/3054/2017
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date28 November 2017

[2017] EWHC 3201 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:

Lord Justice Holroyde

Mr Justice Green

CO/3054/2017

Between:
Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London
Applicant
and
The Family of Mr Daniel Whitworth
The Family of Mr Gabriel Kovari
Interested Parties

Mr E Pleeth appeared on behalf of the Applicant.

Mr L Thomas, QC appeared on behalf of the Interested Parties.

Lord Justice Holroyde
1

Gabriel Kovari died on 28 th August 2014, aged twenty-two. Daniel Whitworth died on 20 th September 2014, aged twenty-one. Inquests into both deaths were conducted by Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the “Coroner”). On 19 th June 2015 she reached an open conclusion in respect of each death. Subsequent to the hearing of those inquests, one Stephen Port was prosecuted for the murders of Mr Kovari and Mr Whitworth and also for the murders of two other young men, Mr Anthony Walgate and Mr Jack Taylor. After a trial before Mr Justice Openshaw and a jury he was convicted of all four crimes. On 25 th November 2016 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a whole life order.

2

The Coroner now applies pursuant to s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 for an order that the original inquisition be quashed and a fresh inquest be held in relation to both Mr Kovari and Mr Whitworth. That application is supported by the bereaved families of Messrs Kovari and Whitworth (to whom I shall refer for convenience as the “families”).

3

Summarising the written submissions in two sentences, the Coroner submits that it is necessary and desirable in the interests of justice for fresh inquests to be held because further evidence as to the deaths is now available. The families support that submission, and have further submitted in writing that fresh inquests are also necessary and desirable because the initial police investigation can now be seen to have been insufficient.

4

I am grateful to Mr Pleeth and to Mr Leslie Thomas, QC for their submissions, both written and oral, on behalf of the Coroner and the families respectively.

The legislative framework:

5

So far as is material for present purposes, s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended) provides as follows:

“(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 corner in the same coroner area;

(b) order the coroner concerned to pay such costs of and incidental to the application as to the court may appear just; and

(c) where an inquest has been held, quash any inquisition on or determination or finding made at that inquest.”

6

It may be noted that similar provision was made in s. of the Coroners Act 1887, but that section did not include any reference to the discovery of new facts or evidence. Those words were added to the legislation by s.19 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926.

7

An application such as is now made by the Coroner requires the authority of Her Majesty's Attorney General. In relation to each of these deaths, such an authority was given by a fiat dated 16 th May 2017 and signed by Her Majesty's Solicitor General.

8

A number of cases relating to applications of this nature have helpfully been drawn to the attention of the court. The relevant principles are succinctly and clearly stated by Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the Divisional Court in Her Majesty's Attorney General v. Her Majesty's Coroner of South Yorkshire (West) and Her Majesty's Coroner of West Yorkshire (West) [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin) at para.10:

“The single question is whether the interests of justice make a further inquest either necessary or desirable. The interests of justice, as they arise in the coronial process, are undefined, but, dealing with it broadly, it seems to us elementary that the emergence of fresh evidence which may reasonably lead to the conclusion that the substantial truth about how an individual met his death was not revealed at the first inquest, will normally make it both desirable and necessary in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be ordered. The decision is not based on problems with process, unless the process adopted at the original inquest has caused justice to be diverted or for the inquiry to be insufficient. What is more, it is not a pre-condition to an order for a further inquest that this court should anticipate that a different verdict to the one already reached will be returned. If a different verdict is likely, then the interests of justice will make it necessary for a fresh inquest to be ordered, but even when significant fresh evidence may serve to confirm the correctness of the earlier verdict, it may sometimes nevertheless be desirable for the full extent of the evidence which tends to confirm the correctness of the verdict to be publicly revealed.”

9

Counsel, in their written submissions, have invited our attention to earlier case law supporting those principles. I do not think it is necessary for me to do more than mention them briefly. In R v. Divine (ex parte Walton) 1930 2 KB 29 the Court was, as it seems to me, particularly concerned with suggested irregularities in the procedure adopted by the Coroner, which is not a point which arises in this case. In In re Rapier (deceased) [1988] QB 26 the court stated the principle that a fresh inquest may be necessary or desirable in the interests of justice even though it could not be said that the fresh inquest would probably lead to a different verdict. In R (Sutovic) v HM Coroner Northern District of Greater London [2006] EWHC 1095 (Admin) the Court considered circumstances in which a fresh inquest may be necessary or desirable even though the verdict was likely to be the same. R v. West Sussex Coroner (ex parte Edwards) (1992) 156 JP 186 was mentioned to the court as an example of a case in which the likelihood of the same verdict being returned was one of the factors which militated against an order for a fresh inquest.

10

I do not think it necessary to say more about those cases, because the facts to which I now turn lead to a clear conclusion as to the proper application in this case of the principles stated in Her Majesty's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Colin Frost v HM Coroner for West Yorkshire (Eastern District)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 8 May 2019
    ...date of the hearing in the Divisional Court. 31 In HM Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London v Whitworth and Kovari [2017] EWHC 3201 (Admin), this Court held, at para 23, that where the new facts or evidence made it clear that the evidence heard by a Coroner was insufficient......
  • R (Mays and Mays) v Senior Coroner for Kingston upon Hull
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 1 December 2021
    ...of the verdict to be publicly revealed…” In HM Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London v Whitworth and Kovari[2017] EWHC 3201 (Admin), [2017] Inquest LR 279 at para 23, the Divisional Court held, that where the new facts and evidence made it clear that the evidence heard by a ......
  • Mary Patricia Farrell v HM Coroner for North East Hampshire
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 30 March 2021
    ...date of the hearing in the Divisional Court. 31. In HM Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London v Whitworth and Kovari [2017] EWHC 3201 (Admin), this Court held, at para 23, that where the new facts or evidence made it clear that the evidence heard by a Coroner was insufficien......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT