R (Maguire) v United Response [2019] EWHC 1232 (Admin)

Inquest and DOLS "First, the claimant contends that the defendant erred in law by determining at the end of the evidence that article 2 no longer applied under Parkinson, thereby prejudging a matter that should have been left to the jury. Secondly, the Coroner erred in law by determining that the jury should not be directed to consider whether neglect should form part of their conclusion. ... That the case law has extended the positive duty beyond the criminal justice context in Osman is not in doubt. The reach of the duty, beyond what Lord Dyson called the "paradigm example" of detention, is less easy to define. We have reached the conclusion, however, that the touchstone for state responsibility has remained constant: it is whether the circumstances of the case are such as to call a state to account: Rabone, para 19, citing Powell. In the absence of either systemic dysfunction arising from a regulatory failure or a relevant assumption of responsibility in a particular case, the state will not be held accountable under article 2. ... We agree that a person who lacks capacity to make certain decisions about his or her best interests - and who is therefore subject to DOLS under the 2005 Act - does not automatically fall to be treated in the same way as Lord Dyson's paradigm example. In our judgment, each case will turn on its facts. ... [The Coroner] properly directed himself as to the appropriate test to apply to the issue of neglect and having done so declined to leave the issue to the jury."

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Date: 15/5/19🔍

Court: High Court (Administrative Court)🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

  • Muriel Maguire🔍
  • Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde🔍

Cites:

Citation number(s):

What links here:

Published: 15/5/19

Cached: 2019-05-25 00:38:24