Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex parte Tal

Weekly Law Reports The Law Reports Cited authorities 17 Cited in 199 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date1984
Date1984
CourtDivisional Court
[QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION] REGINA v. GREATER MANCHESTER CORONER, Ex parte TAL AND ANOTHER 1984 Feb. 23, 24; May 22 Robert Goff L.J., Mccullough and Mann JJ.

Judicial Precedent - Divisional court - How far binding - Supervisory jurisdiction of High court - Doctrine of stare decisis - Whether divisional court free to depart from previous decisions - Judicial Review - Coroner's inquest - Application to quash verdict - Attorney-General not authorising application - High Court's common law supervisory jurisdiction - Whether applicable to inferior courts

During an inquest into the deaths of three men who died in a fire in a cell in Strangeways Prison in Manchester reference was made to a newspaper report which contained details of a rumour that the one of the men's hands were tied. The coroner therefore decided to put before the jury all relevant evidence of that rumour, including direct evidence which allayed the rumour. At the conclusion of the evidence the jury indicated that they did not require further inquiries to be made regarding the rumour and the coroner went on to sum up without making further reference to it. A short time after the jury had retired a juror returned to court and had a discussion with the coroner. A few minutes later the jury returned verdicts of death by misadventure in the case of two men and an open verdict in the case of the man whose hands were allegedly tied.

On an application for judicial review by the families of the two men on the grounds that the coroner had committed errors of law within his jurisdiction which could be reviewed by a divisional court, namely, that the coroner had admitted heresay evidence, had failed to warn the jury that they should not rely on that evidence and had a private conversation with a juror: —

Held, (1) that in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction by means of judicial review a divisional court was bound by the relevant principle of stare decisis in the same way as a puisne judge exercising jurisdiction at first instance follow a decision of a judge of equal jurisdiction, although not bound to do so, unless the decision appeared to be clearly wrong; that there was no longer a requirement that an error of law within the jurisdiction had to appear on the face of the record before judicial review could be invoked and since inferior courts were clearly no longer excluded as a matter of principle from the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction there seemed to be no reason to exclude a coroner's inquest from that jurisdiction; and that, accordingly, it was right to depart from previous authority and consider the application on its merits (post, pp 651F–652A, 653A–F, 654E–F, H–655D).

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147, H.L.(E.) and O'Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237, H.L.(E.) applied.

Reg. v. Surrey Coroner, Ex parte Campbell [1982] Q.B. 661, D.C. not followed.

Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson [1947] K.B. 842, D.C. and Younghusband v. Luftig [1949] 2 K.B. 354, D.C. distinguished.

(2) Refusing the application, that the coroner had not allowed hearsay evidence but had taken the proper course of putting all the evidence before the jury in order to allay rumour; that since the jury had indicated that they were satisfied by the evidence there was no need for the coroner to refer to it in his summing up; that the conversation between the juror and the coroner was not in private but in public and the applicants' representatives had not taken objection to it at the inquest; and that, accordingly, there was no basis for granting the application for judicial review (post, pp. 656B–C, F–G, G–657B, 658C–E).

The following cases are referred to in the judgment:

Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 163; [1969] 1 All E.R. 208, H.L.(E.)

Fortescue v. Vestry of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green [1891] 2 Q.B. 170, D.C.

Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson [1947] K.B. 842; [1947] 2 All E.R. 193, D.C.

Kruse v. Johnson [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, D.C.

o'Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237; [1982] 3 W.L.R. 1096; [1982] 3 All E.R. 1124, H.L.(E.)

Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1966] 1 W.L.R. 1234; [1966] 3 All E.R. 77, H.L.(E.)

Racal Communications Ltd., In re [1981] A.C. 374; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 181; [1980] 2 All E.R. 634, H.L.(E.)

Reg. v. Gould [1968] 2 Q.B. 65; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 643; [1968] 1 All E.R. 849, C.A.

Reg. v. Ipswich Justices, Ex parte Edwards (1979) 143 J.P. 699, D.C.

Reg. v. McIntosh (1858) 7 W.R. 52

Reg. v. Surrey Coroner, Ex parte Campbell [1982] Q.B. 661; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 626; [1982] 2 All E.R. 545, D.C.

Rex v. Divine, Ex parte Walton [1930] 2 K.B. 29, D.C.

Rex. v. Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Shaw [1952] 1 K.B. 338; [1952] 1 All E.R. 122, C.A.

Rex v. Taylor [1950] 2 K.B. 368; [1950] 2 All E.R. 170, C.C.A.

Rex v. Wood, Ex parte Anderson [1928] 1 K.B. 302

Williams v. Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. [1947] 2 All E.R. 884, C.A.

Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1944] K.B. 718; [1944] 2 All E.R. 293, C.A.

Younghusband v. Luftig [1949] 2 K.B. 354; [1949] 2 All E.R. 72, D.C.

The following additional cases were cited in argument:

Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting Corporation [1981] A.C. 303; [1980] 3 W.L.R. 109; [1980] 3 All E.R. 161, H.L.(E.)

Boys v. Chaplin [1968] 2 Q.B. 1; [1967] 3 W.L.R. 266; [1967] 2 All E.R. 665; [1968] 2 Q.B. 1; [1968] 2 W.L.R. 328; [1968] 1 All E.R. 283, C.A.

Jewison v. Dyson (1842) 9 M. & W. 540

Nicholas v. Penny [1950] 2 K.B. 466; [1950] 2 All E.R. 89, D.C.

Practice Direction (Judicial Review: Appeals) [1982] 1 W.L.R. 1375; [1982] 3 All E.R. 800

Reg. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Thomas (unreported), 13 July 1983, McNeill J.

Reg. v. Ingham (1864) 5 B. & S. 257

Reg. v. Ipswich Crown Court, Ex parte Baldwin [1981] 1 All E.R. 596, D.C.

Reg. v. St. Albans Crown Court, Ex parte Cinnamond [1981] Q.B. 480; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 681; [1981] 1 All E.R. 802, D.C.

Reg. v. Staffordshire Coroner (1864) 10 L.T. (N.S.) 650

Reg. v. Townsend [1982] 1 All E.R. 509, C.A.

Rex v. Clarke, Ex parte Crippen (1910) 103 L.T. 636, D.C.

Rex v. Huntbach, Ex parte Lockley [1944] K.B. 606; [1944] 2 All E.R. 453, D.C.

APPLICATION for judicial review.

The applicants, Ida Tal, the mother of Alan Tal, deceased, and Frank George Thomas, the father of Clinton Frank Thomas, deceased, applied for judicial review of an inquest on the deaths, after a fire in their cell at Strangeways Prison, of Carl Seiga, Alan Tal and Clinton Frank Thomas conducted by Leonard Malcolm Gorodkin, Her Majesty's Coroner for the County of Greater Manchester, on 15 September 1982.

The applicants sought an order of certiorari quashing the verdicts returned at the inquest and an order of mandamus requiring the coroner to conduct a fresh inquest on the deaths on the amended grounds inter alia, that (1) a short time after the jury had retired one of the jurors returned alone to the courtroom and had a private discussion with the coroner in the sight of those in court and a few minutes later the jury came back and returned verdicts which were as follows: Carl Seiga — an open verdict; Alan Tal and Clinton Frank Thomas — deaths by misadventure; (2) during the inquest the coroner allowed hearsay evidence to be received but in the course of his summing up failed to give any clear warning to the jury about the dangers of relying upon such hearsay evidence; (3) the coroner drew the jury's attention to an unsubstantiated rumour to which he knew the jury should pay no regard; (4) in so far as the grounds went to errors within the coroner's jurisdiction, the decision of the Divisional Court in Reg. v. Surrey Coroner, Ex parte Campbell [1982] Q.B. 661 ought not to be followed, (a) because it was wrongly decided and the doctrine of stare decisis did not govern decisions of the Divisional Court sitting at first instance; further and alternatively (b) because the House of Lords in O'Reilly v. Mackman [1983] 2 A.C. 237 had held that the principle of Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 A.C. 147 extended to judicial review of inferior courts, requiring the court to apply the second exception to the doctrine of stare decisis set out in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. [1944] K.B. 718.

Stephen Sedley Q.C. for the applicants.

Simon D. Brown as amicus curiae.

Cur. adv. vult.

22 May. ROBERT GOFF L.J. read the following judgment of the court. There is before the court an application for judicial review, brought by leave of the single judge. The application is made by the families of two young men, Alan Tal and Clinton Frank Thomas who, together with another young man, Carl Seiga, died in a fire in a cell in Strangeways Prison in Manchester, on 7 May 1982. The application relates to verdicts of a coroner's jury at the conclusion of an inquest on the deaths of the three young men, conducted by Leonard Malcolm Gorodkin, Her Majesty's Coroner for the County of Greater Manchester, on 15 September 1982. In the case of Tal and Thomas, the verdict was death by misadventure but, in the case of Seiga, an open verdict was returned. It is these differential verdicts which have prompted the present application because it is thought by the families of Tal and Thomas that it might cast some reflection upon them as having possibly caused the death of Seiga. They seek an order of certiorari quashing the verdicts on all three of the victims and an order of mandamus requiring the coroner to conduct a fresh inquest on their deaths.

The main ground of the application relates to material placed before the jury by the coroner concerning a suggestion which had been made in a newspaper report that, at the time of the fire, one of the young men's hands had been tied. As to this matter, the grounds upon which relief is sought read:

“(ii) The three men died as a result of a fire in their cell at Strangeways Prison, Manchester. During the course of the inquest the coroner allowed hearsay...

To continue reading

Request your trial
186 cases
3 books & journal articles
  • Divisional Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 55-2, May 1991
    • 1 May 1991
    ...the judgment of the Courtheld that Dixon's case was wrongly decided and, on the authorityof R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex p Tal [1985] QB 67,declined to follow it.In the instant case Customs and Excise officers investigated andcharged two men with involvement in the importation of hero......
  • Administrative Justice: Beyond the Courtroom Door
    • South Africa
    • Acta Juridica No. , August 2019
    • 15 August 2019
    ...Basket Shoes v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369.74O’Reilly v Mackman (1983) 2 AC 237 at 278; R v Greater Manchester Coroner; Ex parte Tal(1985) QB 67 at 81–3.75Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82.76Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82.77R Creyke & J McM......
  • The Effect of s. 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 when a Person Attains the Age of 18: JC and RT v Central Criminal Court [2014] EWHC 1041 (QB)
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Criminal Law, The No. 78-5, October 2014
    • 1 October 2014
    ...binding on another Divisional Court. Leveson LJ observed that this issue had been dealt with in R v Greater Manchester Coroner, ex p. Tal [1985] QB 67:Goff LJ ... concluded that, in judicial review, as in the High Court, the principle of stare decisis required that, although not bound to do......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT