The King on the application of Matthew Campbell v HM Attorney General for England and Wales

Hearing dates: 18 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10am on Tuesday 1 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Mr Justice Chamberlain and

Introduction

This judgment explains our conclusion on a preliminary issue arising in judicial review proceedings. It concerns the justiciability of a decision of the Attorney General under s. 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 to refuse his authority (or fiat) for an application to the High Court to quash a finding made at an inquest and order a fresh investigation.

Background

Geoffrey Campbell was unlawfully killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Centre in New York City on 11 September 2001. On 29 January 2013, HM Senior Coroner for West London held an inquest. She completed the inquisition form, recording the time, place and circumstances of the death as follows:

“At 8.46am on 11 September 2001 the deceased was on the 106 ^th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Centre when an aircraft (AA11) was deliberately flown into the building, causing its collapse at 10.28am. This event was part of a coordinated attack by the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda.”

The claimant is Mr Campbell's brother. He does not accept that the building collapsed because of the impact of the aircraft. His alternative hypothesis is that the collapse was caused by the detonation of pre-planted explosives or incendiaries. He relies on fresh evidence not available to the Senior Coroner.

On 26 August 2021, the claimant, together with his family and his late brother's fiancée, applied to the Attorney General for authority to apply to the High Court under s. 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) for an order quashing the inquisition and directing an investigation. The application was supported by a large volume of documentary evidence. It was considered by the Solicitor General, who is entitled under s. 1(1) of the Law Officers Act 1997 to exercise any function of the Attorney General. For reasons given in a letter dated 27 June 2023, it was refused.

On 11 September 2023, the claimant's barrister wrote to the Attorney General's Office enclosing draft grounds for judicial review. On 22 September 2023, the Attorney General's Office replied that the decision had been withdrawn and a new decision would be made.

The new decision was communicated by letter of 4 January 2024. The application was again refused. The Solicitor General considered that the cause of the collapse of the buildings had already been adequately investigated in the United States. The clear consensus view was that there was no realistic possibility of any cause other than the impact of the aircraft. The claimant's hypothesis was “fanciful” and “simply not credible”. Reference was also made to the “long-standing principle outlined in Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435 that the exercise of the Law Officers' discretion in public interest functions is absolute, and non-reviewable”.

The present claim was filed on 3 April 2024. The papers were initially not in the proper form. They were refiled on 3 October 2024. Five grounds were advanced: first, that the Solicitor General erred in law as to the test to be applied to the question whether a new investigation was in the interests of justice; secondly, that the decision was irrational in light of the fresh evidence; thirdly, that there was a failure to give adequate reasons; fourthly, that the finding of a “clear consensus view” about what happened on 11 September 2001 was unreasonable; and fifthly, that it was unreasonable to categorise the claimant's hypothesis as “fanciful”.

The Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence were filed on 18 October 2024. These asserted that the challenged decision was not justiciable at all or, alternatively, was challengeable only on exceptional grounds, such as fraud, corruption or bad faith. The grounds were also said to be substantively unarguable.

On 5 December 2024, Chamberlain J considered the application for permission on the papers. He noted that, given the size of the bundle, substantial judicial resources would be involved in considering whether any of the grounds was arguable. The justiciability point was likely to be of relevance in other cases. In those circumstances, he ordered that, prior to the determination of permission to apply for judicial review, there was to be a hearing of a preliminary issue as to whether the challenged decision was justiciable.

Statutory framework

Section 13 of the 1988 Act provides 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 (“the coroner concerned”)…

(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, 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;

… and

(c) where an inquest has been held, quash any inquisition on, or determination or finding made at that inquest.”

This replicates in substantially similar form s. 6(1) and (2) of the Coroners Act 1887.

Functions of the Attorney General

A useful summary of the role and functions of the Attorney General can be found in a House of Commons Library Research Briefing by Dr Conor McCormick and Graeme Cowie, Law officers: a constitutional and functional overview (14 February 2025). The role can be traced to the thirteenth century. The title has been in use at least since 1461. In modern times, the Attorney General has executive functions superintending the Government Legal Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office. He shares with the Ministry of Justice and Home Office ministerial responsibility for criminal justice. Separately, he is the principal legal advisor to the Crown. In this capacity, he advises the Sovereign, the Cabinet, Government departments, individual ministers and Parliament, and may act in legal proceedings on their behalf. In addition, he has what are termed “public interest functions”, some arising under the Royal prerogative, others conferred by statute.

There are public interest functions in relation to both criminal and civil law. As to the former, the Research Briefing identifies “(at least) four notable functions beyond superintending prosecutorial authorities”. First, the Attorney General's consent is required for certain prosecutions. Secondly, he has functions in relation to interferences with the administration of justice. By s. 7 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, his authority is required for proceedings for contempt of court under the strict liability rule. By s. 42(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, he (and only he) can apply for orders preventing vexatious litigants from bringing proceedings. Thirdly, he may apply under s. 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for leave to appeal a sentence on the ground that it is unduly lenient and upon acquittal may refer a point of law to the Court of Appeal under s. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. Fourthly, under the prerogative, he may enter a nolle prosequi, which has the effect of staying criminal proceedings.

As to civil law, there are powers in relation to vexatious litigants (s. 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981), powers under s. 59 of the Family Law Act 1986 to intervene in family cases about marital status, overseas adoptions and parentage and legitimacy and powers to appoint special advocates (under a variety of statutes) and advocates to the court (under the prerogative, but recognised by CPR 3F PD). There are also statutory and common law powers in relation to charities. Finally, there is the function of applying to the High Court to enforce public rights either of his own motion (ex officio) or on behalf of others (ex relatione). We shall have to consider this function in greater detail, because it forms the backdrop to the decision of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Gouriet, which became the focus of much of the argument before us.

The Research Briefing does not refer to the power now conferred by s. 13(1) of the 1988 Act in relation to inquests, but that power naturally falls within the category of the Attorney General's public interest functions in the sphere of civil law.

Key case law

Reviewability of decisions of the Attorney General

In the nineteenth century, the Attorney General had different functions, including functions that fell into the same “public interest” category as the current functions mentioned above. The authority we have seen appears to indicate a clear position that decisions taken in the exercise of these functions were not justiciable in proceedings seeking the prerogative writ of mandamus.

In ex p. Newton (1855) 24 LJQB 247, the...