R (Coker) v HM Coroner for Inner South London and (1) IndependentPolice Complaints Commission and (2) Commissioner of Police for theMetropolis (interested parties)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWHC 614 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/502/2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 10 March 2006 |
[2006] EWHC 614 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Sullivan
CO/502/2006
MR S CRAGG (instructed by Messrs Deighton Guedalla) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR J HOUGH (instructed by Southwark Council Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
MR T WEISSELBERG (instructed by The Independent Police Commission) appeared on behalf of an INTERESTED PARTY
MR C BOYLE (instructed by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) appeared on behalf of an INTERESTED PARTY
In this application for permission to apply for judicial review, the claimant challenges the defendant's decision notified in a letter dated 10 January 2006 to the claimant's solicitors to make public the cause of death of Paul Coker, the claimant's brother, who died in Plumstead police station on 6 August 2005. So far as material for present purposes, the letter said:
"I am writing regarding the above named deceased to inform you that the Coroner is to resume the inquest touching this gentleman's death next week. The police have asked for the cause of death to be made public and the Coroner has agreed to do this within the formal setting of the Court. The pathologist will not be in court and no live evidence will be heard.
"This resumed hearing will take place at Southwark Coroners Court [then the address is given]… Mrs Coker has been written to today to inform her."
There was further correspondence in which the defendant adhered to his decision. The application for permission to apply for judicial review, which was filed on 18 January 2006, sought interim relief to prevent any announcement by the defendant of the cause of death pending determination of the application. On 6 February, Collins J granted interim relief, observing:
"It does seem to me that it is arguable that the coroner should not announce the cause of death before the full inquest since that issue will be for determination by the jury. If he wishes nonetheless to argue that he can do what he proposes, he should apply to the court to fix an oral hearing when the matter can be determined since, so far as I can see, the point is a short one and no evidence is needed. If the coroner does not seek to challenge my Order or for whatever reason it cannot be done in time, the cause of death must not be made public prior to the holding of the inquest."
Unfortunately, the defendant's acknowledgment of service dated 31 January 2006 had not been placed before Collins J when he considered the application for interim relief. Nor, it seems, had he seen a copy of a letter from the defendant's solicitors to the claimant's solicitors dated 23 January 2006, which had clarified the defendant's intentions. That letter said, so far as material:
"… Having read your draft Judicial Review Claim Form, we are concerned that there may be some confusion as to what the Coroner proposes to say at the forthcoming hearing set for 3rd February 2006.
"The Coroner accepts that he should not, at the proposed hearing, state that the cause of death has been finally determined to be … [the cause is then set out] … as this is a matter which will be within the statutory remit of the jury to determine on the evidence. In recognition of this fact, he said in his letter dated 12th January 2006 that any matter considered at the pre-inquest hearing 'will not, of course, determine the Inquest finding, as this will only be given after a full consideration of the totality of the evidence available after the full hearing of the evidence'.
"However, as the Coroner said in the same letter, a coroner is entitled to conduct a pre-inquest review hearing (in public or in private) and to discuss documents which have been disclosed to properly interested persons. Accordingly, it cannot be outside his powers to remit or discuss post-mortem report findings publicly before the Inquest is resumed before the jury.
"In the present case, the IPCC drew it to the attention of the Coroner that there was a certain amount of ill-informed speculation in the local community about what the post-mortem examiner had found. The Coroner is concerned that such speculation might lead to inaccurate reporting of the case and to potential jurors reading inaccurate reports.
"In view of the concerns expressed in your Judicial Review Claim Form, the Coroner wishes to clarify precisely what he proposes to say at the forthcoming hearing. It is his intention to make the following preliminary remarks.
(a) The IPCC has indicated that there has been ill-informed speculation about the medical findings of the post-mortem examiner. There is an obvious concern that inaccurate information should not be reported or disseminated widely.
(b) For this reason, it has been decided to read out the post-mortem report in full, within the context of a pre-inquest review hearing, which has been notified to the properly interested persons.
(c) Although the post-mortem report gives a medical 'cause of death', the findings of the report are not conclusive on this issue. At the inquest, the post-mortem examiner will give evidence and his findings may be questioned or challenged, as in any inquest.
(d) In this case, it is important to record that at least one of the interested persons may seek to place further medical evidence before the Court, which the Coroner might decide to adduce on the question of the medical cause of death.
(e) The medical cause of death is only one of the matters which will have to be considered at the final Inquest.
(f) As in any inquest, the medical cause of death and the circumstances of death can only be stated finally when the Inquest has been concluded. Because Mr Coker died in custody, the Coroners Act requires this Inquest to be held with a jury. Therefore, the cause of death will only be determined when the jury has returned its findings.
"Having made those preliminary remarks, he proposes to read out in full the post-mortem report …"
This is therefore an oral hearing of the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review and the defendant's application to set aside the interim relief granted by Collins J. All the parties were agreed that in the circumstances (full skeleton arguments having been served and no further evidence being required), the hearing should be treated as the hearing of the substantive application for judicial review. I therefore granted permission to the claimant to apply for judicial review and proceed to consider the merits of the substantive arguments.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 8 March, I dismissed the substantive application and, in view of the lateness of the hour, gave short reasons for doing so. I said that I would give the full reasons for my decision today. I now do so.
I would normally begin any judgment with a summary of the relevant factual background. In the particular circumstances of this case, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to adopt that approach. I am very conscious of the fact that the Independent Police Complaints Commission (the IPCC, one of the interested parties) is conducting an investigation into Mr Coker's death. In addition, when he is able to do so the Coroner will be conducting an inquest, with a jury, into Mr Coker's death. At that inquest, the jury will have to decide how, when and where Mr Coker came by his death. I am anxious that nothing I say in this judgment should give even the appearance of pre-judging any question that might be answered by the investigation and/or the jury. I therefore confine this statement of the background facts to (a) the document which the defendant proposes to read in public, and (b) the reasons why the defendant proposes to read the document in public.
The document it is a post-mortem report dated 12 October 2005 which was prepared by Dr Jerreat, a Consultant Forensic Pathologist and Home Office Pathologist, following his examination of the deceased on 7 August 2005. The report is nine pages long. On page 9, Dr Jerreat set out his conclusions; in the circumstances, I do not propose to read out those conclusions. The defendant's decision to read out the post-mortem at a public pre-inquest hearing was prompted by a letter from the IPCC dated 13 January 2006, which said:
"I am writing with regard to the above named person in order to comply with our function in order to assist you in your enquiry into his death.
"In November 2005 the Commissioner and I attended an Independent Advisory Group meeting which consists of community leaders and representatives from the Police. During this meeting concerns were raised from all quarters in relation to growing speculation relating to the cause of Mr Coker's death. This was dealt with by stating that the investigation was ongoing and that was a matter for the coroner to deal with at inquest. The group reluctantly accepted this position.
"Subsequently, on 09th January 2006 at another meeting the same concerns were raised by the community leaders and the Police but reinforced by growing community tension and potential for civil unrest. It was felt by community leaders that it looked like a 'cover up', which was leading to a lack of information being released into the public domain. They felt that this would be alleviated by releasing the cause of death. I agreed that I would consult with the Commissioner and in turn yourself to ensure you were in possession of the information to make any considerations.
"I would add that we are still awaiting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Evandro Lagos v HM Coroner for the City of London Anele Austin (Interested Party)
...must, of course, be exercised in a manner that is fair to all those who have an interest in the proceedings." ( R (Coker) v HM Coroner for Inner South London [2006] EWHC 614 Admin at [14] to [16] per Sullivan J.) 52 Importantly, the proceedings at an inquest are inquisitorial not adversaria......