Re Davis, decd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE DIPLOCK,LORD JUSTICE RUSSELL |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1967 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1967] EWCA Civ J0130-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 30 January 1967 |
[1967] EWCA Civ J0130-1
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Diplock and
Lord Justice Russell
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
The Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: The Divisional Court)
Mr. J. M. RANKIN (instructed by Messrs. George C. Carter & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Brian Archibald Davis.
Mr. NIGEL BRIDGE (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Coroner.
The applicant is the widower of Jeanette Isabel Davis deceased, whom he married in October, 1958, and who died on the 4th August, 1966, at the age of 28. Her Majesty's Coroner for Greater London held an inquest on the 10th August, 1966, and after hearing evidence he found that Mrs. Davis' death was caused by "multiple injuries following jump from second floor window" at about 6.5 a.m. on Friday, 22nd July, 1966, at Kingston Hospital and his conclusion as to the death was suicide.
With the authority of the Attorney-General the applicant sought leave from the Divisional Court to move for an order of certiorari in order to quash the inquisition and to obtain a new inquest. Reliance was placed on section 6 of the Coroners Act, 1887, and relief was sought on the grounds that (a) there was no or no sufficient evidence to support or justify the verdict, (b) there was insufficiency of inquiry, and (c) the proceedings were irregular. The Divisional Court refused the applicant leave to proceed. Before that Court the contention on behalf of the applicant seems to have been that the deceased accidentally fell out of the window whilst opening it or whilst seeking fresh air. The Court thought that view was untenable on the evidence, and in so far as it was raised in this Court so do I. If such a verdict had been justified I can understand the applicant seeking it, but if that is not maintainable there does not appear to be any alternative attenuating verdict.
The contention here was mainly directed to the medical evidence relating to the deceased's mental health preceding and subsequent to her entry into hospital for the purpose of inducing the birth of her child, which occurred on the 17th July, 1966. The husband's affidavit, incorporating a statement of Mrs. Davis' doctor, showed that the deceased had suffered from mild attacks of epilepsy and with the approach of the birth of her child had suffered from extreme anxiety and that this state of anxiety had continued at least intermittently in the five days after the child's birth. In these circumstances this Court, thenconstituted with Lord Justice Davies in place of Lord Justice Diplock, gave leave for the applicant to move for an order of certiorari.
Learned counsel for the husband sought a new inquest in order to expunge the present finding. The only argument ultimately relied on was that the state of the deceased's mental health was insufficiently investigated and that it should at least have been supplemented by the evidence of Dr. Raeside, who had attended Mrs. Davis generally since 1961 and had seen her in hospital on several occasions after the birth of the child and as recently as the 20th July.
The only ground on which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire
...the proposition that suicide is not to be presumed and must be affirmatively proved by some evidence (see, for example, In re Davis, dec'd[1968] 1 QB 72, 82, per Sellers LJ). It must be proved, and it is not permissible to fill in gaps in the evidence. It is not sufficient to say that, if a......
-
R (on the application of Thomas Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire
...being that “he went beyond his power to draw inferences and filled in gaps in the evidence which was before him.” 52 To similar effect, in Re Davis [1968] 1 QB 72, 82, Sellers LJ said: “Suicide is not to be presumed. It must be affirmatively proved to justify the finding.” In that case, ho......
- Public Prosecutor v Shanmugam
-
R Evandro Lagos v HM Coroner for the City of London Anele Austin (Interested Party)
...repeatedly stressed that suicide must not be presumed simply because it seems a likely, or the most likely, explanation of events: a) In Re Davis [1968] 1 QB 72, Sellers LJ said: "Suicide is not to be presumed. It must be affirmatively proved to justify the finding." b) Ex Parte Barber (su......