R (Hurst) v HM Coroner for Northern District London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE HOOPER,LORD JUSTICE ROSE,MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 1721 (Admin),[2003] EWHC 1552 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/989/03,CO/989/2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 04 July 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 1552 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Hooper
CO/989/03
MR K STARMER QC & MR D FRIEDMAN (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR I BURNETT QC (instructed by Metropolitan Police Services, Directorate of Legal Services) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of Her Majesty's Coroner for the Northern District of London dated 19 November 2002. Her Majesty's Coroner is the defendant and the following interested parties have filed acknowledgments of service and made written representations opposing the grant of permission: the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the London Borough of Barnet, and thirdly, the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust. I have considered the written arguments made in their acknowledgments of service and in some cases in additional documents.
In Osmond v the United Kingdom [1998] 29 EHRR 245 at 305, the court said:
"It must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which judged reasonably might have been taken to avoid that risk."
It is the submission of the claimant in this case that the tragic death of her son was brought about by the failure on the part of the authorities to take the necessary measures which, judged reasonably, might have been taken to avoid that risk.
I propose to say very little about the facts. On 25 May, in the evening, the claimant's son was stabbed to death by a man called Reid. On the evidence available to me, Reid had shown signs of being a dangerous individual over a long period of time. He had behaved in a dangerous manner before towards the claimant's family. On 25 May the local authority was in the County Court sensibly seeking Reid's eviction from the house and estate on which he lived. That house or flat was only some 20 yards away from the home of the deceased. During that hearing it appears that Reid behaved in an extremely aggressive manner such as to give great concern to those present.
During that hearing, or so it appears at the present time, Reid learnt that one of the three witnesses who had agreed to come forward to give evidence to justify his eviction was the deceased himself. That evening Reid appeared outside the deceased's flat armed with a knife. The police were called and, so it seems, were unaware of what had happened that morning and were unaware of Reid's long history of violence. Thereafter the police went away saying that they were minded to take action against Reid for harassment. Subsequently a call to the police was made saying that Reid was outside the house again armed with a knife. The police did not have any officers available, but shortly thereafter, in reply to a conversation from the control room, the police were told that Reid was no longer outside the flat. Meanwhile the deceased, who had been in a public house, was returning home. It appears that Reid was waiting for him and stabbed him to death. Reid was subsequently tried at the Old Bailey, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The basis of the manslaughter verdict was one of provocation. There was, as I understand it, no evidence before the Old Bailey to suggest that Reid was suffering from a relevant mental disorder.
The claimant has thereafter sought to have the death of her son fully investigated. The coroner had opened the inquiry prior to the start of the criminal trial. Following the criminal trial, the coroner was invited to resume the inquest, and by a letter dated 19 November 2002, declined to do so. It is now accepted that the reference by the coroner to HHJ Paget QC being himself a coroner, was an error. That however is not relevant to the issue which I have to consider.
The thrust of the case as developed before me today by Mr Starmer QC is that, if the agencies involved had shared information over the period leading up to May 25 and had shared information on May 25, then measures would have been taken which might have avoided this tragedy. The coroner approached each agency separately, but it is at least arguable that he did not look at the issue in the way that it has been developed by Mr Starmer before me. The two agencies with which this application is primarily concerned are the police and the local authority responsible for this estate.
Criticism has been made of the third interested party, the Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust. Their involvement in the history of this matter is very limited. On 11 February 1999, a local beat officer, PC Washer, prepared a 5-page report, concluding that if something was not done Reid would kill someone. He was therefore assessed by the crisis team consisting of specialists in mental health. They reached the conclusion that Reid did not pass the necessary threshold for taking compulsory action against him under the Act. Thereafter, as page 124 of the bundle shows, and following the death, an inquiry panel looked at that visit and made certain criticisms of what occurred that day. In my judgment, it is not arguable that the Trust failed to take any measures within the scope of their powers which judged reasonably might have been taken to avoid the risk. I take the view that no fault can arguably be attached to the third interested party. I am concerned to avoid significant expenditure which would follow should this interested party decide to take part in the proceedings. Whether they do so or not is a matter for them, but I take the view that it would be wrong of the claimant to attach any fault to that party. Anxious to avoid any appeal, if such was possible about this aspect of my finding, I make the following order. Should the claimant wish to argue before the court hearing this application that the views which I have expressed are wrong, then they must give notice to the interested party that they propose to do so. I am aware that the claimant is receiving public funding for this case and that it would follow that should the claimant continue to ascribe fault to this interested party, then it would not be possible to make an ordinary award of costs against the claimant. However, I urge those who advise the claimant to consider carefully whether they wish to reopen the issue which I have sought to resolve at this stage. I leave it to the parties to draft the order which imposes some quick timetable upon the claimant in this respect.
It seems to me arguable that in so far as the two agencies are concerned, which I have identified, that the coroner applying the Osmond Test should resume the inquest, concentrating particularly on the events of 25 May and looking at the history of the matter in so far as it assists in that investigation. Mr Starmer, after a short adjournment, accepts that he cannot identify acts which should have taken place before 25 May, which failure to take might fall foul of the Osmond test other than the alleged failure to consult and discuss the problem of Reid in an inter-agency manner.
I have been asked by Mr Burnett to order that the substantive hearing should not take place until after the decision of the House of Lords in the Amin and Middleton cases. I am told today that no date has been fixed for those appeals and that it is likely that the earliest date for the hearing of the appeals is October. My original understanding was that the appeals were to be heard this month, but I am apparently wrong. Should I take the course which Mr Burnett suggests, this case would be delayed for a period of some 9 months to a year. I take the view that that would be an unreasonable delay bearing in mind the huge and inevitable stress which the claimant must be suffering. She, I know, is anxious to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Middleton is obviously a vital case on the precise role and responsibilities of a coroner in those cases which may raise the Article 2 issue. Nonetheless, I take the view, which will of course be subject to the view of the court that hears this application, that it would be practical and desirable to hear this case within the next few months and prior to the end of the summer term.
It seems to me that this is a case that should be considered by a Divisional Court consisting of two judges and I so order. I have already mentioned that I wish counsel to draw up the order. I would like included in that order a requirement that the defendant notify the parties whether (permission having been granted) he wishes to resume the inquest. Mr Burnett suggests that that should be done after the evidence has been filed and that, it seems to me, is a sensible suggestion and I would ask that that be incorporated into the order.
It is been suggested that the hearing will last a day to a day and a half. To be on the safe side, I have said two days, and the list office offers 25 and 26 June or 3 and 4 July. I would hope that one of those two will be dates suitable to those counsel who are in the case at the present time. Have I given enough guide on the order?
Yes, thank you very much.
You need to choose the date and then you need to do all the times of service but I am going...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrne v an Taoiseach and Others
... ... HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 S6 (UK) R (HUNT) v LONDON NORTHERN DISTRICT CORONER 2007 2 AC 189 2007 2 WLR 726 2007 ... by the House of Lords in the McKerr case, or in Hurst v. London Northern District Coroner [2007] 2 WLR 726 ... ...
-
R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence
... ... COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL (Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment ... , the ratio of Turkish troops to population in northern Cyprus (the subject matter of Strasbourg jurisprudence, see ... under the relevant US statute which authorised district courts "within their respective jurisdictions" to entertain ... West Somerset Coroner [2004] UKHL 10 , [2004] 2 WLR 800 ... ...
-
R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner
...may in part be because of the difficulty in reconciling the differing views expressed in this regard by the House of Lords in R (Hurst) v London District Coroner [2007] UKHL 13, [2007] 2 AC 189. 65 We note in passing that the differences between the two types of inquest are likely to contin......
-
Beattie v HM Advocate
... ... 1 All ER 2; [2001] 2 Cr App R 28 R (Hurst) v London Northern District CoronerUNKELRWLRUNK [2007] ... be made to R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner ... Although R v Lambert is not binding on this court, it ... ...