R (Lewis and Others) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 1403 |
| Date | 21 December 2009 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Rimer and Lord Justice Etherton
There was only a power, but not a duty, on a coroner to leave possibly, but not probably causative matters to the jury.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in dismissing an appeal by the applicant, Keith Lewis, against the dismissal by Sir Thayne ForbesUNK ([2009] EWHC 661 (Admin)) of judicial review proceedings brought against the Coroner for Mid and North Shropshire, Dr John Ellery, who had not given any opportuntiy to the jury to express a view on the action which was taken after the applicant's son, Karl, was found hanging in his prison cell at Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution.
Mr Tim Owen, QC and Mr Paul Bowen for Mr Lewis; Mr Jonathan Hough for the coroner; Ms Jenni Richards and Mr Colin Thomann for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as an interested party.
LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY said that on the night of January 21/22, 2005, Karl Lewis was found hanging in his prison cell. The prison officer on night patrol who found him hanging had a key but elected not to enter the cell. He had received no suicide prevention or first-aid training. Nor was he equipped with a tool, known as a fishknife, designgd to enable attempted suicides to be cut down promptly without further injuring them, and which was now compulsory.
Instead, he used his radio; but instead of using "code red", signifying spillage of blood, or "code brown", signifying the possibility of loss of life, he used "code blue", which signified breathing problems. The result was that assistance took longer than it should have done to arrive. By the time Karl was cut down he was dead.
An inquest into the death took place over eight days in October 2006. The coroner identified six substantive issues to be addressed and in due course gave the jury a written questionnaire.
What was omitted from the questionnaire was the action taken after Karl was found hanging in his cell. In consequence the jury was not given an opportuntiy to express a view on it.
The applicant contended that this was an unlawful omission. His Lordship saw the force of the foundational proposition on behalf of the applicant that the circumstances of death were not limited to its probable causes; they extended as a matter of plain English to the surrounding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Maureen Speck) v HM Coroner for District of York NHS England and Another (Interested Parties)
...to in all the submissions that I have received. Having done so, I am not satisfied that the threshold as expressed in R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for Mid and North Shropshire has been satisfied. Therefore the scope of the inquest will not include this issue. I adopt and accept the arguments put ......
-
The Queen (on the application of John Paul Chidlow) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde
...rather than probable, causes of death to the jury in accordance with the decision in R (Lewis) v. Mid & North Shropshire Coroner [2009] EWCA Civ 1403, [2010] 1 W.L.R. 1836, he added: “Straightforwardly, I disagree. In the context of 1a unascertained, I take the view strongly that there is......
-
Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police v HM Coroner for Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon Mrs Elber Twomey and Others (Interested Parties)
...protect life: See R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182 at [2]. In R v Mid and North Shropshire Coroner, ex p. Lewis [2010] 1 WLR 1836 at [39] Etherton LJ noted the change that had been effected when paragraph 7(1) had superseded rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 and said "......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v HM Senior Coroner for Surrey Mrs Tatiana Perepilichnaya and Others (Interested Parties)
...conclusion. The wide scope of an initial investigation may be funnelled over time; conversely, the scope may expand: see R (Lewis) v. Mid and North Shropshire Coroner [2010] 1 WLR 1836. A coroner's discretion in conducting an inquest, and the need for him to do so fearlessly, were highlight......