R v Greater Manchester North District Coroner, ex parte Worch
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SLADE |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1987 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1987] EWCA Civ J0731-4 |
| Docket Number | 87/0841 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 31 July 1987 |
[1987] EWCA Civ J0731-4
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Slade
Lord Justice Nicholls
Sir John Megaw
87/0841
MR. DAVID SULLIVAN Q.C. and MR. G. KAVANAGH (instructed by The Solicitor, Town Hall, Rochdale) appeared for the Appellant.
MR. RICHARD GORDON (instructed by Messrs. Arran Wacks & Co., Manchester) appeared for the Respondents.
This is an appeal by the Coroner for Greater Manchester North District from a judgment and order of the Divisional Court (Watkins L.J. and Macpherson J.) given on 14th January 1987 whereby Mrs. Sarah Sime Worch and Mr. Walter Brunner, as applicants, were granted a declaration that the decision of the appellant Coroner made on 4th/5th August 1986 directing or requesting that a post-mortem examination be made on the body of Colin Worch deceased was unlawful.
For present purposes the facts can be stated quite shortly. On 4th August 1986 the deceased was driving along a motorway. At about 7.30 p.m. he apparently, quite suddenly, lost control of his car. It left the motorway and crashed into some obstruction. Police who were called to the scene found him dead at the wheel.
His widow, the first applicant Mrs. Worch, was informed. She telephoned the second applicant, Mr. Brunner. He is the president of an organisation known as Chesed Shel Emess, of which the deceased was a member. This organisation is responsible for looking after the body of a Jewish person from death up to and including burial. His evidence is that those who belong to this organisation acknowledge and believe that:
"It is a sacred duty of the Jewish People to look after the body, prepare for burial and carry out the burial in accordance with the appropriate laws and customs. It is considered as such an important thing, that it takes precedence over almost all other Jewish laws and because of its importance and complexity special organisations referred to above, are established in all practising Jewish Communities.…
It is also obligatory to ensure that the burial takes place as quickly as possible and in any case before sunset, only in exceptional circumstances is it permitted for the body to be left overnight.
It is very strictly forbidden to tamper with the body in any shape or form, thus a P.M. is absolutely forbidden in accordance with Jewish law."
At about 10 p.m. Mr. Brunner informed the Coroner of the accident and death by telephone. The Coroner wished to hear further details from the police and at about 9.30 a.m. the following morning (5th August) he spoke to the police officer concerned, who gave him brief details of the circumstances surrounding the death. From that conversation he learned that the police were continuing their investigations, but it was thought no other motor vehicle was involved.
The Coroner decided to hold a post-mortem. In paragraph 2 of his first affidavit he made both a number of submissions of law and a number of statements of fact relating to this decision. In paragraph 2 (2) he said:
"I maintain that I exercised my discretion as to the holding of a post-mortem under section 21 (2) of the Coroners Act 1887 in a proper manner."
In paragraph 2 (4) he said:
"My discretion was exercised properly to assist myself to establish the cause of death."
In paragraph 2 (8) he described the reasons for his decision as follows:
"In the circumstances, I exercised my discretion and decided that a post mortem was necessary in order to determine whether the deceased had died as a result of injuries or had died from a natural cause so producing the injuries when the car crashed. The particular circumstances of the incident indicated that the deceased might have suffered some form of attack which produced the loss of control."
In paragraph 2 of a later, second affidavit he further explained his reasons as follows:
"The police were continuing their investigations but it was thought at that stage that no other motor vehicle was involved. At this point, from the information given to me, I had reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased had died either a violent or unnatural death or a sudden death of which the cause was unknown. I formed the opinion that an inquest might be necessary. I then went through the reasoning process as set out at paragraph 2, subparagraph 8 of my earlier Affidavit. I then requested a pathologist to hold a post-mortem examination. I did feel that when I had the result of the post-mortem examination that it would be open to me to dispose of the matter without an inquest if the cause of death were shown to be natural. It was when I was informed that the medical cause of death was multiple injuries, that is unnatural, that I decided to open an inquest."
The Coroner in his first affidavit stated, and there is no reason to doubt, that he was well aware of the burial requirements and funeral arrangements for the Jewish community. It has not been suggested that he has been careless of their concern over such matters.
On 5th August 1986 a pathologist was instructed or requested to conduct a post-mortem and he did so at 3 p.m. that day. He reported that the medical cause of death was multiple injuries (so that the deceased had not died a natural death).
At about 3 p.m. Mr. Brunner arrived at the Coroner's office, but the Coroner was absent holding inquests and his office had not yet received the report of the post-mortem. A short time afterwards the Coroner telephoned his office and learned the effect of the pathologist's report. He ordered an inquest to take place on the following day. At about 3.30 p.m., according to his evidence, Mr. Brunner was informed by the Coroner's secretary that the Coroner had stated that an inquest would have to take place and that the burial order could only be issued after the opening of that inquest. In paragraphs 1 (12) and 1 (13) of his first affidavit, the Coroner explained the reasons why he considered that he should not issue an immediate burial order. These reasons are not material for the purpose of this appeal.
Mr. Brunner was upset by the information given to him by the Coroner's secretary, coupled, as it was, with the statement that an inquest could not take place until the following morning, 6th August. He could not understand why in any event the body could not be released for burial at once, now that the postmortem had taken place.
He again spoke to the Coroner on the telephone about the urgency for a burial order. The Coroner informed him that his deputy was now dealing with the matter and that he would have to contact the deputy to see whether the inquest could be held earlier. Mr. Brunner attempted to contact the deputy, but was unable to do so.
The inquest was opened at 12 noon on 6th August. The pathologist's report was handed to the deputy Coroner. Formal evidence of identity of the deceased's body was given. Soon after that the burial order was issued on the same day, 6th August.
On 21st October 1986 Simon Brown J. gave the applicants leave to move for judicial review of the decisions of the Coroner
-
(1) to direct or request that a post-mortem examination be made on the body of the deceased;
-
(2) to withhold issuing an order authorising the burial until after the opening of the inquest.
The Divisional Court, in its decision of 14th January 1987, refused relief under the second of these heads and there is no challenge to that part of its decision. However, it granted relief under the first head, in the terms of the declaration referred to at the beginning of this judgment. From this part of the order the Coroner now appeals.
Watkins L.J., in the course of his judgment, observed that the concern of the applicants was perfectly understandable, having regard to Jewish law and faith and custom and practice with regard to post-mortems and burial. The locus standi of the applicants to apply for judicial review has not been challenged on this appeal. However, as Watkins L.J. also observed, a Coroner is subject to the law laid down by Parliament and has to obey that law with scrupulous regard to all its provisions.
We now turn to the relevant statute law. Section 3 (1) of the Coroners Act 1887 ("the 1887 Act"), as amended, provides for the holding of inquests as follows:
"Where a coroner is informed that the dead body of a person is lying within his jurisdiction, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died either a violent or an unnatural death, or has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown, or that such person has died in prison, or in such place or under such circumstances as to require an inquest in pursuance of any Act, the coroner, whether the cause of death arose within his jurisdiction or not, shall, as soon as practicable, issue his warrant for summoning not less than (seven) nor more than (eleven) good and lawful men to appear before him at a specified time and place, there to inquire as jurors touching the death of such person as aforesaid."
Mr. David Sullivan Q.C., on behalf of the Coroner, pointed out that the wording of section 3 (1) imposes an obligation on a coroner as soon as practicable to set in motion arrangements for the holding of an inquest where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the relevant death
-
(A) was violent or unnatural, or
-
(B) was a sudden death of which the cause is unknown, or
-
(C) occurred in prison, or
-
(D) occurred in such place or under such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terry v Coroner for East Sussex
...Act." 8 The effect of s.19 (earlier enacted as s.21 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926) was considered by this court in R v Greater Manchester Coroner ex parte Worch [1988] 1 QB 513. I need cite only the following passages from Slade LJ's leading judgment: "… there can be no doubt that s.......
-
Terry v Coroner for East Sussex
...and that disadvantages operate each way. 9 We were referred to R v Greater Manchester North District Coroner, ex parte Worch and another [1988] QB 513. In that case, following consideration of the two-stage process I have already rehearsed, Slade LJ remarked: "the obvious purpose of section......
-
Jordan’s (Hugh) Applications (13/002996/1,13/002223/1,13/037869/1) Preliminary Issue
...a Coroner had appealed an adverse decision from the Divisional Court to the Court of Appeal. In some of these, such as ex p WorchELR[1988] 1 QB 513 and R (Touche) v Inner London CoronerELR[2001] QB 1206, [2001] Inquest LR 223, there was no opposing party and the Coroner was seeking to estab......