Susan Flower v HM Coroner for the County of Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon The Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police and Another (Interested Parties)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice McCombe,His Honour Judge Thornton |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 3666 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2417/2015 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 December 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 3666 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice McCombe
AND
The Chief Coroner
( His Honour Judge Thornton QC,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CO/2417/2015
-and-
Jude Bunting (instructed by Stephensons) for the Applicant
Alison Hewitt (instructed by the Respondent) for the Respondent
Catriona Hodge (instructed by Devon and Cornwall Police Legal Department) for the First Interested Party
The Second Interested Parties did not appear and was not represented.
Hearing date: 17 November 2015
(A) Introduction
This is an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended) for:
"a. A mandatory order quashing the original inquest findings into the death of Keith Brian Dance;
b. A mandatory order directing that fresh inquest [sic] be conducted into the death of Keith Brian Dance…"
(and other relief).
I set out the claim, as formulated in the Claim Form, to illustrate immediately the preliminary question of this court's jurisdiction, identified by my Lord, the Chief Coroner, in the course of preparation for the hearing of this case, and addressed at our request by counsel for the applicant and for the respondent in their helpful additional written and oral submissions.
The short problem is that there has been no concluded inquest, and there are, therefore, no original inquest findings to quash.
Section 13 of the 1988 Act was amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013/1874. As amended it provides as follows:
"Order to hold [investigation]
(1) This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner ("the coroner concerned") either —
(a) that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held; or
(b) where an inquest [or an investigation] has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that [an investigation (or as the case may by [sic] another investigation] should be held.
(2) The High Court may —
(a) order an [investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009] to be held into the death either —
(i) by the coroner concerned; or
(ii) by [a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner in the same coroner area];
(b) order the coroner concerned to pay such costs of and incidental to the application as to the court may appear just; and
(c) where an inquest has been held, quash [any inquisition on, or determination or finding made at] that inquest."
The authority of the Attorney-General was given for the bringing of this application by fiat dated 28 April 2015, in these terms:
" IN PURSUANCE of the Attorney General's powers under the Coroners Act 1988, and IN ACCORDANCE WITHsection 1(1) of the Law Officers Act 1997, I HEREBY AUTHORISE Susan Flower to make an application to the High Court of Justice for an order under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988, quashing the original inquest and directing a fresh inquest to be held into the death of Keith Brian Dance."
To explain the jurisdiction issue it is necessary to set out a little of the background and procedural history of this case.
(B) Factual and Procedural Background
The applicant is the mother of the deceased, Mr Keith Dance, who died on or about 12 March 2013. He met his death in violent circumstances and on 25 March 2013, prior to the entry into force of the material provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the coroner opened and adjourned an inquest into the death. On 21 August 2013, in the Crown Court at Plymouth, a man called Ian Gollop pleaded guilty to the murder of the deceased and, after trial in the same court ending on 5 February 2014, a woman called Jacqueline Cooke was also convicted of the murder. Gollop and Cooke were each sentenced to life imprisonment, with specified minimum custodial terms of 17 1/2 years and 15 years respectively.
On 21 October 2013, the coroner had suspended his investigation into the death pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to section 11 of, and paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to, the 2009 Act. By certificate of 29 November 2013, the coroner had informed the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths of the suspension of the investigation. By notice dated 7 February 2014 from the Crown Court the coroner was sent notice of the result of the criminal proceedings.
Paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the 2009 Act provides that,
"8 (1) An investigation that is suspended under paragraph 2 may not be resumed unless, but must be resumed if, the senior coroner thinks that there is sufficient reason for resuming it."
By certificate (Form 121) "issued in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009" dated 17 February 2014, addressed to the Registrar for the Plymouth sub-district, the coroner stated that,
"In respect of the investigation into the death of Keith Brian DANCE at…Flat 5, 128 Molesworth Road, Stoke, Plymouth which was suspended under Schedule 1 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 on the Twenty-First day of October 2013
I hereby certify as follows…
The investigation has not been resumed.
Criminal proceedings were instituted on a charge of Murder
As a result of those proceedings the defendant [sic: defendants] was Convicted of Murder…".
The question that now arises in these circumstances, therefore, is whether (for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the 1988 Act as amended (which I have quoted above)), "…an inquest or an investigation has been held…" so that, if appropriate, this court may order (under section 13(2)) a fresh investigation to be held. Quite apart from the query as to this point which we raised with counsel, we have been informed that it is a point upon which the views of coroners differ and that it would be of assistance to them for the court to decide the matter.
The words "…or an investigation…" were added to section 13(1)(b) by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013. In its unamended form the Act provided in clear terms that for that provision to apply an inquest had to have been held. It was tolerably clear that that meant that the inquest had to have been carried through to completion. Does the change mean that if an investigation has been started, but not completed (for whatever reason), it has been "held" and that, therefore, the court can decide whether "an investigation (or as the case may be), another investigation should be held" (s.13(1)(b)) and so (under s.13(2)) "order an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to be held…"?
Section 6 of the 2009 Act provides that,
"6. A senior coroner who conducts an investigation under this Part into a person's death must (as part of the investigation) hold an inquest into the death.
This is subject to section 4(3)(a)"
Section 4 of the 2009 Act is in these terms:
"Discontinuance where cause of death revealed by post-mortem examination
(1) A senior coroner who is responsible for conducting an investigation under this Part into a person's death must discontinue the investigation if-
(a) an examination under section 14 reveals the cause of death before the coroner has begun holding an inquest into the death, and
(b) the coroner thinks that it is not necessary to continue the investigation.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the coroner has reason to suspect that the deceased-
(a) died a violent or unnatural death, or
(b) died while in custody or otherwise in state detention.
(3) Where a senior coroner discontinues an investigation into a death under this section-
(a) the coroner may not hold an inquest into the death;
(b) no determination or finding under section 10(1) may be made in respect of the death.
This subsection does not prevent a fresh investigation under this Part from being conducted into the death.
(4) A senior coroner who discontinues an investigation into a death under this section must, if requested to do so in writing by an interested person, give to that person as soon as practicable a written explanation as to why the investigation was discontinued."
It is clear that in the present case there was no discontinuance of the investigation under section 4 of the 2009 Act but only a suspension under Schedule 1 of the Act and a later decision not to resume. Accordingly, it seems to me that the investigation, which, as section 6 provides, requires an inquest as a constituent part, has not been completed. Further, in this case, an inquest was opened and adjourned. It seems to me, therefore, that on the ordinary meaning of the convoluted (and somewhat puzzling) provisions of the two Acts, for an investigation to have been "held", it has to have been completed; a part investigation is no more an investigation that has been "held" than a part inquest is an inquest that has been held. Without the completion of the inquest, required by section 6 on the facts of this case, as it seems to me, the investigation has not been completed and, therefore, has not been "held" for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the 1988...
To continue reading
Request your trial