Terry v Coroner for East Sussex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Rafferty,MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY,and,THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Judgment Date | 29 November 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J1129-4 |
| Docket Number | CO/0991/2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 29 November 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J1129-4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes)
Mrs Justice Rafferty
CO/0991/2000
MR A ALLSTON (instructed by Messrs Dean Wilson Laing, Brighton BN1 1UJ) appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT
MR J HOUGH (instructed by Legal Services, East Sussex County Council, Lewes BN7 1AL) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
Wednesday 29 November 2000
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: For the reasons set out in the judgment of Mrs Justice Rafferty, the application is dismissed.
This is an application, following issue of the Attorney General's fiat, under section 13(1)a of the Coroners Act 1988 for an order that Her Majesty's Coroner for East Sussex should hold an inquest into the death on 26 May 1994 of Albert Terry. The applicant is his widow Margaret. Both the defendant Alan Craze, the current Coroner and Dr Gooding, his predecessor, declined to order an inquest.
There are two issues:
(1) As to law; is the Coroner now functus officio, his predecessor having issued a certificate to the effect that the cause of death was as disclosed by the post mortem?
and(2) As to mixed law and fact; is there reasonable cause to suspect that Mr Terry died of asbestos related disease, which it is agreed constitutes an unnatural death and would require an inquest?
Section 13 insofar as it is relevant reads as follows:
(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
(a) that he refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held:
(2) The High Court may —
(a) order an inquest to be held into the death
FUNCTUS OFFICIO
The defendant contends that he is functus officio. Section 19 of the 1988 Act provides where relevant as follows:
"(1) where a Coroner is informed that the body of a person is lying within his district and there is reasonable cause to suspect that the person has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown, the Coroner may, if he is of the opinion that a post-mortem examination may prove an inquest may be unnecessary – a. direct any legally qualified medical practitioner whom, if an inquest were held, he would be entitled to summon as a medical witness under section 21 below; or b. request any other legally qualified medical practitioner, to make a post mortem examination of the body and to report the result of the examination to the Coroner in writing.
….
(3) where a post mortem examination is made under this section and the Coroner is satisfied as a result of it that an inquest is unnecessary, he shall send to the Registrar of Deaths a certificate under his hand stating the cause of death as disclosed by the report of the person making the examination.
(4) nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Coroner to dispense with an inquest in any case where there is reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased – (a) has died a violent or unnatural death; (b) has died in prison or such a place or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any other Act."
In practice this section is deployed by Coroners to direct a post mortem by a forensic pathologist and, if thereby satisfied there is no reason to hold an inquest, then to issue a "Pink Form B"to the Registrar of Deaths. No inquest is held. The defendant contends that the act of issuing "Pink Form B" renders him functus. That issue, he argues, replaces an inquest, and, like an inquest, results in the registration of death, thus this administrative act discharges his function to enquire into a death. The applicant argues that there is nothing within the statute to suggest that a post mortem takes the place of an inquest, it merely identifies procedure such as to allow a preliminary examination. She points to the clarity of section 19(4).
It may be helpful in this regard to review the provisions of section 13 of the Act. Section 13 (1)a applies where the Court is satisfied that a Coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held. Section 13 (1)b applies where an inquest has been held, but it is necessary or desirable in the interest of justice that another should be held. Section 13(2) provides as follows "the High Court may -– (a) order an inquest or, as the case may be, another inquest to be held into the death either –—(i) by the Coroner concerned; or (ii) by the Coroner for another district in the same administrative area;" The applicant contends that this section merely allows a post mortem which may then direct the Coroner to an inquest. She points to a certain apparent illogicality in the Coroner's applying under section 13(1) a for a High Court order, when it is he who is said to have neglected or refused to hold an inquest. If for example there were a clear case of new evidence emerging it would be strange for the Coroner to need a High Court order. He must she contends be able simply to move on and hold an inquest; section 19(4) underlines the logic of that proposition, she maintains, and she supports her argument by reminding the Court that the Attorney-General occasionally refuses his fiat.
The defendant describes section 19 as instituting as a two stage process. The first question to be asked is "is the cause of death unknown?"If the answer is yes, then the Coroner may order a post mortem. If the post mortem eliminates a need for an inquest then he moves to stage 2, and issues a Pink Form B. Section 19(3) the defendant contends, is a reminder for the Coroner. He should not issue a certificate if there is reasonable cause to suspect an unnatural death. Stage 1 therefore contemplates uncertainty prompting him to say "I will order a post mortem", stage 2 contemplates an informed Coroner, subsequent to a post mortem, reminding himself that he must not dispense with an inquest if he is not satisfied that an inquest is unnecessary.
A real difficulty arises in a case where subsequent to his having gone through those two stages, new evidence emerges. What is he to do? Is he to leave open his file for the receipt of representations, or is the issue of Pink Form B exhaustive of his powers? Putting it another way, upon issue of Pink Form B can the Coroner say "that is an end to the matter"? The defendant argues that once he has ordered the post mortem, read it, and considered whether the section 8 criteria are met, he has fulfilled his duty, and procedurally, the section 19 Pink Form B supplants an inquest, effectively operating as a short cut. If he were to be expected to continue to receive views from families or other interested parties that would militate against the very purpose of section 19. Coroners are concerned, we are told, about the practical effect of their not becoming functus by virtue of the issue of Pink Form B. A Coroner would be forced to maintain his files for considerably longer that at present, and would with some regularity expect to enter into lengthier correspondence. It is conceded that this is not an easy question and that disadvantages operate each way.
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 19, as we have already pointed out, was to effect an economy of time and effort by eliminating the need for an inquest in certain cases where the legislature thought an inquest would be unnecessary. The section, so construed above, will never enable a Coroner to dispense with an inquest so long as there remains a reasonable cause to suspect that the death was violent or unnatural; and indeed section 19 (3) makes this clear, however, we can see no reason why the legislature should have thought it inappropriate to give a Coroner the power to direct a post mortem in a case where he considers that its result may eliminate the need to hold an inquest, by eliminating as a matter of evidence the possibility that the death was violent or unnatural¼."
There exists but limited guidance for Coroners on this point. Jervis on Coroners at paragraph 18 –05 reads as follows:
"There is a question mark as to when exactly a Coroner becomes functus officio. Before 1927 there was no power to dispense with an inquest where the statutory criteria was satisfied. Nowadays, however, there is a procedure whereby in the case of a sudden death the cause of which is not known, the Coroner may order a post mortem examination to be made and may thereafter dispense with an inquest (the so called "Pink Form B" procedure). It is not clear whether utilising that procedure renders the Coroner thereafter functus officio in relation to that particular death or whether if he thereafter discovered further evidence bringing the case within the other criteria for holding an inquest he could so do without an application to the Court having to be made."
Paragraph 18 —06 reads:
"The Attorney-General has in the past refused his fiat to an application to the High Court to set aside "Pink Form B"on the grounds that it was unnecessary , as the Coroner was not functus officio. This does not sit easily with the fact that, by statute, the post mortem examination and the Coroner's decision taken upon the report thereof, take the place of the inquest which (if held) would have made the Coroner functus officio.
Paragraph 18 –07. On the other hand, a Coroner who signs "Pink Form A" to inform...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Canning) v HM Coroner for Northamptonshire
...impugned on Wednesbury grounds, in other words for irrationality or illegality; see Touche per Simon Brown LJ at paragraph 16 and Terry v East Sussex Coroner [2002] QB 312 para 21. 4 Before the Divisional Court Miss Hill, who then appeared for Mr Canning, also relied on cases under article ......