Valerie Earl v HM Senior Coroner for East Sussex
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 3468 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/20/2021,CO/20/2021 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
and
[2021] EWHC 3468 (Admin)
Lord Justice Warby
Mr Justice Saini
and
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Teague QC
Chief Coroner of England and Wales
Case No: CO/20/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Stephen Kamlish QC and Christopher Williams (instructed by Wells Burcombe LLP) for the Claimants
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
George Thomas (instructed by Weightmans LLP) for the Interested Party
Hearing dates: 13 December 2021
Approved Judgment
This is the judgment of the Court, to which all its members have contributed.
Introduction
This is an application for an order under section 13(1)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) quashing the inquisition on the inquest of 27 July 1989 (“the Inquest”) into the death of Jessie Victoria Earl (“Jessie”). The application is brought by Jessie's parents, Valerie and John Earl. The hearing was conducted by CVP. At the conclusion of the hearing, we announced that, for reasons that would follow, we would quash the inquisition and direct a new investigation. These are our reasons.
Jessie went missing on 15 May 1980. Her skeletal remains were found some 9 years later on 25 March 1989 in an area of thick gorse bushes at Beachy Head in Sussex. At the Inquest, the then Coroner for East Sussex (Eastern Division), Mr David Wadman (“the Coroner”), sitting alone, concluded that the medical cause of death was unascertainable and recorded an open verdict.
Jessie's parents have always strongly disagreed with this open verdict. Their view at the time of the verdict, a view maintained to this day, is that that their daughter Jessie was murdered. They feel that the Coroner's verdict was against the evidence and followed an incomplete and seriously flawed police investigation. The suggestion that Jessie could have died as a result of anything other than an unlawful killing has understandably caused considerable anxiety to them. They have continued for many years to press for the verdict to be reopened.
By Fiat issued on 11 November 2020, Her Majesty's Attorney General authorised Valerie and John Earl under section 13(1) of the 1988 Act to make this application challenging the Inquest.
The primary basis for the Claimants' application to the Divisional Court is material derived from a Sussex Police investigation between 2000–2001 known as Operation Silk. That was a “cold case” investigation into Jessie's death that detectives from that force commenced of their own motion. On concluding this investigation, the Senior Investigation Officer (SIO), Detective Chief Inspector Steve Dennis (“DCI Dennis”), said that he was in no doubt that Jessie had been murdered. The report which summarized the findings of the investigation has been referred to as “the Silk Report” before us.
Although the Claimants put their case in a number of different ways, the overriding theme is that the 2000 investigation revealed a serious insufficiency of inquiry by both the police and the Coroner. It is also argued that there were irregularities in the proceedings before the Coroner. The essence of the application is that the Coroner wrongly recorded an open verdict in circumstances where an unnatural cause was clearly more likely than a natural one and where a verdict of suicide could be completely ruled out. It is accordingly submitted that the inquisition should be quashed, and a new investigation directed.
The Defendant is Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Sussex, Mr Alan Craze, a successor to Mr Wadman. Mr Craze has indicated that he does not oppose or support the Claimants' application to quash the inquisition and is content to let the Court decide the matter. He has not appeared by Counsel. As we describe further below, the conclusions in the Silk Report were presented by the Sussex Police to Mr Craze in 2000 but he declined at that time to apply for a fresh inquest.
The Chief Constable of Sussex is an Interested Party in these proceedings. She takes a neutral stance and does not oppose the application for a new inquest. The Chief Constable does not seek to depart from the historic view expressed in 2000 by DCI Dennis in the Silk Report that Jessie was murdered. The Chief Constable has also served evidence in which the current SIO charged with the investigation, Superintendent Emma Heater, has made clear that the view of the force remains that Jessie's death should be regarded as a case of murder and the case remains open.
In the course of these proceedings, the Chief Constable has provided substantial additional disclosure of materials from Operation Silk. The Chief Constable has appeared by Counsel who has provided helpful submissions on the law and certain aspects of the facts.
We were also greatly assisted by the concise oral and written submissions presented on behalf of the Claimants by their Leading and Junior Counsel.
The Claimants' pleaded case advances 5 grounds for the application which are described as follows: (1) New Facts or Evidence; (2) Insufficiency of Inquiry; (3) Irregularity of Proceedings; (4) Necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for a new inquest; and (5) The possibility of a different verdict.
These grounds overlap in substantial respects and as we said at the hearing, we considered grounds (2) and (3) raised essentially the same points. It also appeared to us that underlying these grounds was in essence a direct attack on the reasonableness of the verdict. Grounds (4) and (5) are more properly issues concerned with relief if the earlier grounds are made out. Ground (1) principally concerns the potential new evidence which may emerge if Jessie's remains are exhumed. As we explain below, Ground (1) raises matters which it is more appropriate for the coroner to consider at the new inquest which we will direct.
The Attorney General gave the Claimants authority to bring this challenge before the decision of the Supreme Court in R (Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 (“ Maughan”) and there has been argument before us as to the effect of that decision. Nothing turns on that case but when the matter returns to a new coroner, they will need to apply the law as declared by the Supreme Court.
The Claimants confirmed that they do not rely on the Maughan case in support of their arguments that a new inquest should be ordered. We accordingly say nothing further about that case.
We will begin with the facts. Our summary is based on the contemporaneous documents, the witness statements and what appears in the Silk Report. At certain points in the narrative there are gaps in the evidence, but we will proceed on the basis of the inferences which we consider it appropriate to draw. Given the length of time since the original Inquest, there are understandable gaps in the record.
Jessie's disappearance
Jessie was born in Woolwich on 16 December 1957. She was last seen alive on Thursday 15 May 1980 at her student home, No. 10 Upperton Gardens, Eastbourne, East Sussex. At the time of her disappearance she was aged 22 years and studying at Eastbourne College of Art and Design.
On Wednesday 14 May 1980, Jessie called her parents at their home in South London, from a telephone box on the seafront in Eastbourne. Jessie had that week received good results in a college assessment and was looking forward to the visit of a pen friend from Australia. She told her mother she would be home on Friday 16 May 1980.
Jessie did not come home on the Friday night. Her parents thought she must have missed the last train. As her mother Valerie says “But in the morning, there was still no phone call. So, I went shopping and came back, and I just thought, there's something not right. I said to John, I'm going to go down to Eastbourne”.
Valerie Earl gained entry to Jessie's bedsit with the assistance of another tenant on Saturday 17 May 1980 and reported Jessie as missing to the police.
The police searched the bedsit and examined for blood and fingerprints. They found no blood or relevant fingerprints in the room and there were no signs of a struggle. The bedsit had signs of Jessie having cooked and consumed a meal. There was extensive news coverage, but searches of the area proved negative.
As explained by Mr Earl, the investigating officer's assessment was that Jessie had obtained a passport and had gone abroad. Mr Earl informed the police that she did not have her passport and was told by the officer she must have obtained another one. The police refused the Earls' request that the police make a public appeal for information and the family, at their own cost, arranged for the printing and distribution of leaflets. The attitude of the police seems to have been that this was at most a missing person case, but it was more likely that Jessie had simply left the country.
It is of some significance that at the time she disappeared in 1980, Valerie Earl gave the police information as to a middle-aged man hanging around Jessie and giving her perhaps unwanted and inappropriate attention. She made a witness statement in this regard on 28 May 1980 in which she said:
“Jessie last visited us at home on Friday 2 nd May 1980 and staying at home until Tuesday 6 th May 1980 when she returned to Eastbourne early morning. During this time she appeared her normal self and very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
HM Senior Coroner for South London v HM Assistant Coroner for South London
...of this court to intervene on the ground of irrationality was explained in Earl v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for East Sussex [2021] EWHC 3468 (Admin) in which the judgment of this court was given by Saini J. At paragraph 69 he said: “Although section 13(1)(b) provides a non-exhaustive li......
-
The King (on the application of Ghaleb Makki) v HM Senior Coroner for South Manchester
...case but are not to be confused with making findings of fact; see [36] and [38]. 29 He cites, Earl v HM Senior Coroner for East Sussex [2021] EWHC 3468 at [78] and [80] for the principles that: (i) “insufficiency of inquiry is fact-specific but examples would be an inquiry which leaves too ......