R (Revenue and Customs Commissioners) v HM Coroner for the City of Liverpool (Association of Personal Injury Lawyers intervening) [DC]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Gross,Mr Justice Burnett,Burnett J,Gross LJ |
| Judgment Date | 21 May 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/642/2014,Case No: CO/642/2014 |
| Date | 21 May 2014 |
and
[2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin)
Lord Justice Gross
Mr Justice Burnett
Case No: CO/642/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Miss Gemma White and Miss Sarah Wilkinson (instructed by General Counsel and Solicitor to HMRC) for the Claimant
Miss Anne Studd QC (instructed by Liverpool City Council) for the Defendant
Timothy Brennan QC (instructed by Thompsons Solicitors) for the Interested Party
Matthew Stockwell for the Intervening Party
Hearing dates: 11 th March 2014
INTRODUCTION
This is the judgment of the Court to which we have each contributed.
There was before the Court an application by the Claimants ("HMRC") for judicial review, seeking an order quashing the Notices issued by the Defendant ("the Coroner") dated 11 th and 27 th December, 2013 ("the Notices"). The Notices required an occupational history in respect of Mr. Roderick Carmichael ("the Deceased") who died on 4 th October, 2013 at the University Hospital Aintree.
The Notices were issued pursuant to Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (" CJA 2009"). The principal (though not the only) issue before us was whether Schedule 5 bound the Crown by necessary implication. If "yes", then HMRC was entitled and bound to comply with the Notices. If "no", then, by reason of the statutory prohibition (backed by criminal sanctions) contained in s.18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 ("CRCA 2005") on the disclosure of information held by HMRC, it was neither entitled nor bound to comply with the Notices (subject to the other points argued before us).
We indicated at the hearing that the Court would endeavour to supply the parties with the result in advance of the reasoned judgment. On the 8 th April, 2014, we did so, saying this:
"2. The Court is satisfied that Sched. 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 binds the Crown by necessary implication. It follows that HMRC was and is bound to comply with the Notices….
3. Accordingly, the HMRC claim for Judicial Review must be dismissed."
We now set out the reasons for our conclusion.
CHRONOLOGY
The factual and procedural history is essentially undisputed and can be shortly summarised.
As already indicated, the Deceased died on the 4 th October, 2013. After a post-mortem examination, it was the Pathologist's conclusion that the cause of death was "1(a) Pneumonia and Asbestosis". A history of suspected asbestos exposure at work was reported to the Coroner who decided that he would need to investigate whether the Deceased's death was as a result of an Industrial Disease. To this end, the Coroner (a senior coroner), by letter dated 10 th October, 2013, requested an occupational history from HMRC. When HMRC failed to respond to this request, the first of the Notices was issued. It would appear that in or about November 2013 HMRC had changed its policy of releasing work histories in fatal cases (i.e., where the work history related to an individual already deceased).
Subsequent exchanges between HMRC and the Coroner involved HMRC explaining its position and the Coroner issuing the second of the Notices, closely followed by HMRC commencing these proceedings.
Pausing here, the Notices were both headed "Notice requiring evidence to be given or produced" and were issued pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 to the CJA 2009. They required the provision of an occupational history for the Deceased in the form of a written statement. In the event of non-compliance, the relevant officer of HMRC was directed to attend to give evidence at the inquest on 6 th January, 2014, at the place and time specified in the Notice.
On the 3 rd January, 2014, Stewart J ordered that the Notices were to have no effect until the determination of the claim for judicial review or further order.
On the 26 th February, 2014, Ouseley J granted permission for HMRC's application. He also, inter alia, ordered that an appropriate representative of the Deceased should be joined as an Interested Party ("the Personal Representative") and that the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers ("APIL") be permitted to intervene by written submissions.
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
CRCA 2005: We begin with the CRCA 2005. S.1(1) provides for the appointment of Commissioners for HMRC. By s.1(4), in exercising their functions, the Commissioners act on behalf of the Crown.
S.18 provides, insofar as material, as follows:
"(1) Revenue and Customs Officials may not disclose information which is held by Revenue and Customs in connection with a function of the Revenue and Customs.
(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to a disclosure –
(a) which –
(i) is made for the purposes of a function of the Revenue and Customs; …….
(b) which is made in accordance with section 20 or 21,
(e) which is made in pursuance of an order of court,
(h) which is made with the consent of each person to whom the information relates,"
S. 19(1) deals with wrongful disclosure and is in these terms:
" A person commits an offence if he contravenes section 18(1)….by disclosing revenue and customs information relating to a person whose identity –
(a) is specified in the disclosure, or
(b) can be deduced from it."
S.20, "Public interest disclosure", so far as relevant, provides as follows:
" (1) Disclosure is in accordance with this section (as mentioned in section 18(2)(b)) if –
(b) it is of a kind –
(i) to which any of subsections (2) to (7) applies,
…..and
(c) the Commissioners are satisfied that it is in the public interest.
(6) This subsection applies to a disclosure if it is made –
(a) to a person exercising public functions in relation to public safety or public health, and
(b) for the purposes of those functions."
CJA 2009: We turn next to the CJA 2009. S.1 imposes a duty on Senior Coroners to investigate certain deaths:
"(1) A senior coroner who is made aware that the body of a deceased person is within that coroner's area must as soon as practicable conduct an investigation into the person's death if subsection (2) applies.
(2) This subsection applies if the coroner has reason to suspect that –
(a) the deceased died a violent or unnatural death,
(b) the cause of death is unknown, or
(c) the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention.
(7) A senior coroner may make whatever enquiries seem necessary in order to decide –
(a) whether the duty under subsection (1) arises;"
S.5 deals with matters to be ascertained in the course of an investigation:
" (1) The purpose of an investigation under this Part into a person's death is to ascertain –
(a) who the deceased was;
(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death;
(c) the particulars (if any) required by the 1953 Act to be registered concerning the death.
(2) Where necessary in order to avoid a breach of any Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998…), the purpose mentioned in subsection 1(b) is to be read as including the purpose of ascertaining in what circumstances the deceased came by his or her death. "
S.32 deals with the powers of coroners, essentially by way of Schedule 5 to this Act. Schedule 5, in turn, provides as follows:
" (1) A senior coroner may by notice require a person to attend at a time and place stated in the notice and –
(a) to give evidence at an inquest,
(b) to produce any documents in the custody or under the control of the person which relate to a matter that is relevant to an inquest, or
(c) to produce for inspection, examination or testing any other thing in the custody or under the control of the person which relates to a matter that is relevant to an inquest.
(2) A senior coroner who is conducting an investigation under this Part may by notice require a person, within such period as the senior coroner thinks reasonable –
(a) to provide evidence to the senior coroner, about any matters specified in the notice, in the form of a written statement,
(b) to produce any documents in the custody or under the control of the person which relate to a matter that is relevant to the investigation, or
(c) to produce for inspection, examination or testing any other thing in the custody or under the control of the person which relates to a matter that is relevant to the investigation.
3. (1) A senior coroner conducting an investigation under this Part, if authorised —…..
may enter and search any land specified in the authorisation.
(2) An authorisation may be given only if –
(a) the senior coroner conducting the investigation has reason to suspect that there may be anything on the land which relates to a matter that is relevant to the investigation, and
(b) any of the conditions in sub-paragraph (3) are met.
(3) Those conditions are –
(a) that it is not practicable to communicate with a person entitled to grant permission to enter and search the land;
(b) that permission to enter and search the land has been refused;
(c) that the senior coroner has reason to believe that such permission would be refused if requested;
(d) that the purpose of a search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the senior coroner can secure immediate entry to the land on arrival.
(4) A senior coroner conducting an investigation under this Part who is lawfully on any land –
(a) may seize...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Commissioner of Police v Medical Management Company Ltd
...[1947] AC 58 applied; Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580; R (Revenue and Customs Comrs) v Liverpool Coroner [2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin) applied and R (Black) v Secretary of Justice 27 UKSC 81 applied. 3. The court is cautious not to create a formula to differentiate a ......
-
R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for Justice
...as those to be applied in that case. The relevant principles were recently considered by the Divisional Court in R (Revenue and Customs Commissioners) v Liverpool Coroner [2014] 3 WLR 1660. In that case the Coroner, who was conducting an investigation into a person's death, issued notices u......
-
R (Black) v Secretary of State for Justice
...of the principle." 31 The only other case which it is necessary to consider is R (Revenue and Customs Comrs) v Liverpool Coroner [2014] EWHC 1586 (Admin); [2015] QB 481. The issue was whether or not the Coroners Act 2009, and specifically the investigatory powers contained in Schedule 5, wa......
-
Secretary of State for the Home Department v HM Senior Coroner for Surrey Mrs Tatiana Perepilichnaya and Others (Interested Parties)
...publicly, the person who disclosed it to the coroner can apply for judicial review of the coroner's decision: R (Revenue and Customs Commissioners) v. Liverpool Coroner [2015] QB 481; R (Secretary of State for Transport) v. HM Senior Coroner for Norfolk [2016] EWHC 2279 (Admin). 44 A more d......