R (Mulholland) v HM Coroner for St Pancras
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CRANE,Lord Justice Kennedy,Mr Justice Royce |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2612 (Admin),[2003] EWHC 96 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/950/2002 & CO/618/2003,CO/950/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 07 November 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 2612 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Kennedy and
Mr Justice Royce
Case No: CO/950/2002 & CO/618/2003
Stephen Simblet (instructed by Christian Khan, Bloomsbury) for the Claimant/Applicant
Charles Béar QC (instructed by London Borough of Camden Legal Services) for the Defendant
Samantha Leek (instructed by the Metropolitan Police Legal Services) for the interested party
This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Inquest into the death of John David Bunker in which the jury on 23 rd November 2001 returned a verdict of accidental death. We have also before us an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 in which the applicant, a sister of the deceased, seeks a fresh inquest.
Background.
On 1 st February 2001 John Bunker, aged 46, was estranged from his family and of no fixed abode. At about 2 pm he visited Richer Sounds, a shop in Bloomsbury Way, London selling high-fi equipment and electrical goods. He was suspected by the staff of that shop of having stolen a DVD from the shop a couple of days earlier, in an incident of which there was, it seems, a record on CCTV. He was asked by the staff to leave the shop, and the staff then informed the manager Mr Hart when the manager returned to the premises. By that time Mr Bunker had gone down the street, but Mr Hart chased after him and caught him. There was a scuffle. Mr Bunker fell and struck his head. One passer-by, Adrienne Smith, heard a bang and a thud, and turned round to see John Bunker slipping down the wall with his back to the wall and his feet in the gutter. She ran part way back and called out to ask if he was alright, and did he need an ambulance. Mr Hart then told her to go to his shop and get help and telephone the police. She did as she was told, with the result that one of the shop assistants went with her to where the scuffle had occurred in Gilbert Place, and both the police and the ambulance were summoned. The 999 call was made at 2.29 p.m., and two plain clothes police officers, PC Mullally and PC Walker arrived about ten minutes later. They found Mr Hart holding down John Bunker, who was struggling to get up. John Bunker appeared to the officers to be drunk, and he had soiled himself. He was alleged to be a thief, so he was arrested on suspicion of theft, and handcuffed.
The ambulance arrived at 2.45 p.m., with Ruth Williams, a qualified ambulance technician. She spoke to the police officers and examined John Bunker. He was conscious, alert, had no difficulty in breathing, and had good colour. She did not recall knowing that he had been unconscious, and in fact Mr Hart had told the officers that there had been no loss of consciousness. John Bunker did not complain of nausea or vomiting. Ms Williams assessed his Glasgow coma scale test which revealed no abnormality. She found a small one-centimetre graze on his head, and nothing more, but offered to take him to hospital, an offer which was firmly declined.
The ambulance then left, and the police officers summoned a police van to convey John Bunker to the police station. Soon after the ambulance left another passer-by, Josephine Smith, saw John Bunker half slumped in a sitting position on the floor. His arms were raised to shoulder height, his head was slumped forward, he was, she thought, clearly distressed, and she was concerned for him. She stopped and spoke to the men who were with him, and was reassured when she found that they were police officers, but she was still uneasy about the ambulance having gone away leaving the man she considered to be in need of treatment.
The police van, driven by PC Donaldson, arrived and John Bunker was then put into the van and taken to Albany Street police station, which took another ten minutes or so. When he arrived at the police station he was taken to the custody suite, where he vomited, and Police Sergeant Clark, the custody officer, formed the view that John Bunker was in need of urgent medical attention. He instructed PC Mullally and PC Walker, who had brought John Bunker into the custody suite, to take him straight to the hospital. He was put back into PC Donaldson's van, which had only been at the police station for about 5 minutes, and the van was then driven by PC Donaldson to the Royal Free Hospital, a journey taking about ten minutes. On arrival the officers in the van waited a short time for the other two officers, Mullally and Walker, to arrive by car, and they then took John Bunker into the hospital. PC Donaldson's recollection was that the van's involvement lasted about 45 minutes. The other two officers remained with John Bunker until he began to receive treatment, and the hospital records show treatment beginning with a triage time of 16.10. Unfortunately the treatment was unsuccessful and John Bunker died late on the following day. A post mortem examination was performed by Dr Rouse, who found that death was due to head injury.
The circumstances were such as to call for an inquest, and the inquest was originally fixed for August 2001, but it was given a later date, 21 st November 2001, to enable Carol Bunker, the sister of the deceased to obtain representation. On 14 th August 2001, her solicitors, the solicitors now acting for the claimant, wrote to the police seeking widespread disclosure. Thereafter, because Carol Bunker was unwell, the 21 st November 2001 date was vacated, and then restored. The application for restoration was made on 5 th November 2001, and it was restored on 8 th November 2001. On that date the Coroner's Officer informed the claimant's solicitors which witnesses were to be called, and supplied a copy of the medical report of a consultant neurosurgeon, Mr Dorward. On 14 th November 2001 the solicitors asked for seven other witnesses to be called, including Josephine Smith, four other passers-by, a staff member from Richer Sounds and a police officer. The post mortem report was disclosed on the following day, and on 16 th November 2001 the Coroner's Officer advised the solicitors that all of the extra witness who had been asked for other than the police officer would be heard on 20 th November 2001, for that purpose the inquest starting half a day earlier than planned.
At the Inquest.
At the start of the inquest on 20 th November 2001 the Deputy Coroner made it clear that there were time constraints. He was only available for 2 1/2 days at most (Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday and Friday) and neither he nor the court would be available the following week. He sought and received the assurance of counsel for Carol Bunker that the time available would be sufficient.
The identification witnesses were then called after which the Deputy Coroner said that although Josephine Smith had been asked to attend for various reasons she could not leave her family so he proposed to read her statement pursuant to Rule 37 of the Coroners Rules 1984, and he did so. There was no objection at that stage.
On the following day, 21 st November 2001, the Deputy Coroner advised counsel for Carol Bunker and counsel for the police, Miss Leek, that three witnesses on the original witness list would not be available – Mr Hart, who was located in Holland, Ruth Williams, who was on leave unwell and who had a family bereavement, and Police Sergeant Clark, who had recently had major surgery and had suffered a relapse making further surgery likely. The Deputy Coroner proposed to read all three statements and the statement of Mr Dorward pursuant to Rule 37. Miss Edmonds, for Carol Bunker, expressed regret at the absence of Mr Hart. The Deputy Coroner agreed, and in the event Mr Hart attended and was called. The statements of Ruth Williams, Sergeant Clark and Mr Dorward were read.
During the day there was discussion, in the absence of the jury, of the extent to which the police officers could be cross-examined by reference to Metropolitan Police Special Notice 37/97 Medical Care of Prisoners: Persons Ill or Injured, and the Deputy Coroner ruled as to what cross-examination he was prepared to allow.
When Dr Rouse gave evidence he was told by the Deputy Coroner that Mr Hart had described the deceased as having a two-stage fall, and he observed that these cases "often tend to be instantaneously fatal". The period of lucidity and apparent normality he regarded as consistent with the injury. In answer to Miss Leek Dr Rouse said that a straightforward backward fall without the two stage impact does tend to result in deep unconsciousness and medical treatment tends to be of no use. He observed that "we tend to see a lot of these". Miss Edmonds then asked if it was possible that if John Bunker had been taken to hospital immediately after the fall he could have survived. The doctor's view was that it would not have made any difference.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday 21 st November 2001 the Deputy Coroner received submissions as to the possible verdicts to be left to the jury, and he then adjourned to Friday 23 rd November 2001. During that interval the solicitors for Carol Bunker contacted Mr Gavalas, a consultant in Accident and Emergency Services at University College Hospital. When the hearing was resumed on Friday 23 rd November 2001 Miss Edmonds said that because of what Dr Rouse had said (which she to some extent misrepresented) "we have consulted yesterday a trauma consultant at UCH and we firmly believe that this evidence should and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Sutovic) v HM Coroner for Northern District of Greater London
...verdict is often critical and sometimes decisive ( Re Rapier [1998] 1 QB 26 at 39,R(Mullholland) v HM Coroner for St Pancras [2003] EWHC 2612 (Admin) para 27) it is not inevitably conclusive: see Re Rapier, at 37–38, Re Tabarn 20 January 1998. 96 This is not a case to which Article 2 applie......
-
Burns (Patricia) Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review
...on the test of whether there was a ‘real possibility’ of a different verdict”2 2 Citing, inter alia, Mulholland v St Pancras Coroner [2003] EWHC 2612 (Admin) and North West Wales Coroner –v- Hartley [2005] EWHC 2343 (Admin) 9 [38] I am therefore satisfied that it is at least arguable, in ci......