Category:Inquest cases
(Redirected from Category:Inquests)
See Inquests
The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.
| Case and summary | Date added | Categories |
|---|---|---|
| * Pre-inquest costs Briley v Leicester Partnership NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 1470 (SCCO) — Legal Aid for an inquest ran alongside CFAs for civil litigation. Pre-inquest work would have been recoverable under Legal Aid but was instead claimed from the defendant at market rates when the litigation concluded successfully. The costs judge decided that this work was recoverable from the defendant. | 2023‑07‑15 21:07:15 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Article 2 and inquests R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2023] UKSC 20 — "Whether the death of a disabled woman who was deprived of her liberty engaged the state's obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, therefore requiring an inquest jury to make findings regarding the circumstances by which the death occurred." | 2023‑06‑22 08:42:17 | Judgment available on Bailii, 2023 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquest R (Patton) v HM Assistant Coroner for Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire [2022] EWHC 1377 (Admin) — The mother of a 16-year-old girl who had hanged herself while under the care of Specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services challenged the coroner's decision that the Article 2 procedural investigative duty did not arise. The decision was quashed and remitted to the coroner for re-determination. | 2023‑03‑14 20:54:39 | 2022 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquest R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London [2022] EWCA Civ 1410 — The coroner was right to conclude that the patient's circumstances did not give rise to an operational duty under Article 2 upon the Trust to protect her from the risk of accidental death from the use of recreational drugs, and therefore was right to conclude that the parasitic procedural duty to hold a Middleton inquest did not arise. There was no error in the Divisional Court upholding that decision, and the appeal was dismissed. | 2022‑10‑29 20:01:39 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * Inquest and care order R (Boyce) v HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool [2022] EWHC 107 (Admin) — (1) There was no procedural obligation to hold an Article 2 Middleton inquest into the death of the child who was under a care order in a residential children's home, as she was not in state detention: the difference between a child deprived of liberty in secure accommodation, and a child in care who is free to come and go (notwithstanding that if she simply left police would have been called to return her) and for whom there was no suggestion of secure accommodation, is of substance not merely of form. Obiter, even if the child had been detained it would not have been pursuant to any action by the state given the private nature of the accommodation. (2) The coroner was not wrong to conclude that on the available material there was no arguable breach of the Article 2 general/systems duty. (3) The argument that the coroner had been wrong to hold that the only material effect of the inquest not being an Article 2 inquest would be on the conclusions that might be returned, rather than upon the scope of the inquest, was also unsuccessful. | 2022‑02‑10 21:37:28 | 2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022 cases
|
| * No Article 2 inquest for voluntary patient R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London [2021] EWHC 1603 (Admin) — The issue in this case was whether there was a duty to hold a Middleton inquest (an inquest which fulfils the enhanced investigative duty required by Article 2) following the death of a voluntary in-patient of a psychiatric rehabilitation unit due to an overdose of recreational drugs when she was at home in the community. | 2021‑10‑19 21:00:56 | 2021 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021 cases
|
| Inquest cases - PFD reports — This page does not exist yet | 2021‑04‑24 21:08:23 | Inquest cases
|
| * Article 2 inquests and community patients Re Lee [2019] MHLO 73 (Coroner) — The coroner, following the Administrative Court decision that she had failed properly to address the Article 2 operational duty as set out in the Rabone case, in this decision sets out reasons for concluding that the operational duty was neither engaged nor breached. | 2020‑07‑30 14:41:12 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on MHLO, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, 2019 cases
|
| * Article 2 inquests and community patients R (Lee) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sunderland [2019] EWHC 3227 (Admin) — The coroner had decided that Article 2 was not engaged in this case, which involved the death of a community patient who was not subject to the MHA. (1) In relation to the operational duty, the coroner's decision had focussed almost exclusively on the question of responsibility rather than the "threefold factors of assumed responsibility, vulnerability and risk" set out in the Rabone case. The matter was remitted to the coroner for reconsideration. (2) The grounds which related to systemic failures were unarguable. | 2020‑07‑30 14:19:53 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Inquest determination and findings quashed Rushbrooke v HM Coroner for West London [2020] EWHC 1612 (Admin) — The applicant, who had been the deceased's Relevant Person's Representative under a DOLS authorisation successfully argued for the inquest's determination and findings to be quashed. | 2020‑06‑25 21:10:36 | 2020 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inquest and DOLS R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2020] EWCA Civ 738 — "The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the circumstances surrounding the death of Jacqueline Maguire (known as Jackie) required the coroner to allow the jury at her inquest to return an expanded conclusion in accordance with section 5(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. ... Jackie was subject to a standard authorisation granted by Blackpool Council pursuant to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards set out in Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. ... Jackie's circumstances were not analogous with a psychiatric patient who is in hospital to guard against the risk of suicide. She was accommodated by United Response to provide a home in which she could be looked after by carers, because she was unable to look after herself and it was not possible for her to live with her family. She was not there for medical treatment. If she needed medical treatment it was sought, in the usual way, from the NHS. Her position would not have been different had she been able to continue to live with her family with social services input and been subject to an authorisation from the Court of Protection in respect of her deprivation of liberty whilst in their care." | 2020‑06‑11 20:53:44 | 2020 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2020 cases
|
| * Inquest and DOLS R (Maguire) v HM's Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2019] EWHC 1232 (Admin) — "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." | 2019‑05‑15 21:35:39 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * Suicide burden of proof at inquests R (Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2019] EWCA Civ 809 — "This appeal involves questions of importance concerning the law and practice of coroners' inquests where an issue is raised as to whether the deceased died by suicide. The questions can be formulated as follows: (1) Is the standard of proof to be applied the criminal standard (satisfied so as to be sure) or the civil standard (satisfied that it is more probable than not) in deciding whether the deceased deliberately took his own life intending to kill himself? (2) Does the answer depend on whether the determination is expressed by way of short-form conclusion or by way of narrative conclusion? Those are the questions falling for decision in this case; but to an extent they have also required some consideration of the position with regard to unlawful killing. ... I conclude that, in cases of suicide, the standard of proof to be applied throughout at inquests, and including both short-form conclusions and narrative conclusions, is the civil standard of proof." | 2019‑05‑10 21:35:22 | 2019 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2019 cases
|
| * JR of decision not to resume inquest R (Silvera) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2017] EWHC 2499 (Admin) — "In this claim for judicial review Muhammad Silvera challenges the decision of the Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire not to resume the inquest into the death of his mother, Ms Vittoria Baker. It is submitted that the decision of the Senior Coroner not to resume the inquest and thereby to hold a full inquest into this death was unlawful. It is submitted that the Senior Coroner breached the investigative duty under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and was irrational and in breach of the duty at common law to fully investigate this death. ... The Senior Coroner refers in his letter of February 2016 to the 'Crown Court Trial' together with the two reports as being sufficient to satisfy Article 2 of the Convention. There was, in fact, no Crown Court trial. At an early hearing an acceptable plea was tendered and 'K' was made the subject of a hospital order. The two other investigations comprised an internal NHS Trust investigation that was carried out in private and the DHR was expressed to be private and confidential. ... In all the circumstances, this claim for judicial review should be allowed." | 2017‑10‑23 22:37:24 | 2017 cases, Cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Inquests and state detention R (Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2017] EWCA Civ 31 — "On 7 December 2013, Maria Ferreira, whom I shall call Maria and who had a severe mental impairment, died in an intensive care unit of King's College Hospital, London. The Senior Coroner for London Inner South, Mr Andrew Harris, is satisfied that there has to be an inquest into her death. By a written decision dated 23 January 2015, which is the subject of these judicial review proceedings, the coroner also decided that he did not need not to hold the inquest with a jury. ... A coroner is obliged to hold an inquest with a jury if a person dies in 'state detention' for the purposes of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The appellant is Maria's sister, Luisa Ferreira, whom I will call Luisa. She contends that, as a result of her hospital treatment, Maria had at the date of her death been deprived of her liberty for the purposes of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that accordingly Maria was in 'state detention' when she died. ... In my judgment, the coroner's decision was correct in law. Applying Strasbourg case law, Maria was not deprived of her liberty at the date of her death because she was being treated for a physical illness and her treatment was that which it appeared to all intents would have been administered to a person who did not have her mental impairment. She was physically restricted in her movements by her physical infirmities and by the treatment she received (which for example included sedation) but the root cause of any loss of liberty was her physical condition, not any restrictions imposed by the hospital. The relevant Strasbourg case law applying in this case is limited to that explaining the exception in Article 5(1)(e), on which the Supreme Court relied in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, and accordingly this Court is not bound by that decision to apply the meaning of deprivation of liberty for which that decision is authority. If I am wrong on this point, I conclude that the second part of the 'acid test', namely that Maria was not free to leave, would not have been satisfied. Even if I am wrong on all these points, I would hold that as this is not a case in which Parliament requires the courts to apply the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting the words 'state detention' in the CJA 2009, and that a death in intensive care is not, in the absence of some special circumstance, a death in 'state detention' for the purposes of the CJA 2009. There is no Convention right to have an inquest held with a jury. There is no jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court which concludes that medical treatment can constitute the deprivation of a person's liberty for Article 5 purposes. The view that it is a deprivation of liberty would appear to be unrealistic. We have moreover not been given any adequate policy reason why Parliament would have provided that the death of a person in intensive care of itself should result in an inquest with a jury. That result would be costly in terms of human and financial resources." | 2017‑01‑26 15:20:11 | 2017 cases, Cases, Deprivation of liberty, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment missing from Bailii, 2017 cases
|
| * Inquest R (Speck) v HM Coroner for District of York [2016] EWHC 6 (Admin), [2016] MHLO 1 — "Drawing these strands together, my conclusions were as follows. First, that the duty of the coroner was limited to a duty to investigate those matters which caused, or at least arguably appeared to him to have caused or contributed to, the death. Secondly, that the claimant was unable to show even an arguable case that any body was at the material time under a duty, statutory or otherwise, to establish a health-based place of safety at a time, and in a location, such that Miss Speck could have been taken to such a facility in June 2011. Thirdly, that the claimant was therefore unable to show even an arguable case that Miss Speck's death was caused or contributed to by a breach of such a duty. Fourthly, that the coroner was therefore correct to decline to investigate issues as to the non-availability of a health-based place of safety: to have done so would have been to investigate matters which fell outside his statutory duty under section 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Lastly, that even if I had been persuaded that it was within the coroner's discretion to investigate such matters, I would have found there was no basis on which it could be said that his decision not to do so was a perverse or otherwise unlawful exercise of that discretion." | 2016‑01‑17 19:50:20 | 2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016 cases
|
| * Inquests and state detention R (LF) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London [2015] EWHC 2990 (Admin) — "Maria died while in intensive care at King's College Hospital in London ... Plainly an inquest will be held; that is not in dispute. However, by a written decision ... the Defendant Senior Coroner rejected the argument that Maria was "in state detention" at the time of her death, within the meaning of ss. 7(2)(a) and 48(1) and (2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and therefore the inquest must be held with a jury. By way of judicial review, the Claimant challenges that conclusion and contends that in the circumstances the Coroner was bound to call a jury. The sole issue for the Court is whether the Claimant's challenge is well-founded." | 2015‑10‑30 22:49:39 | 2015 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Judgment available on Bailii, 2015 cases
|
| R (Letts) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors [2015] EWHC 402 (Admin), [2015] MHLO 72 — "This application for judicial review concerns the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which might engage Article 2... What this case boiled down to was a consideration of how Article 2 applies to the suicide of mental health patients and an assessment of the (in)adequacy of the Guidance in reflecting the law. I have come to the conclusion that in one material respect the Guidance is inadequate and both incorporates an error of law and, also, provides a materially misleading impression of what the law is. ... [I]n the absence of a clear recognition that there is a category of case where the investigative duty arises quite irrespective of the existence of arguable breach by the State the Guidance is materially misleading and inaccurate." | 2015‑10‑28 23:27:05 | 2015 cases, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Reynolds v UK 2694/08 [2012] ECHR 437, [2012] MHLO 30 — (1) A voluntary in-patient killed himself by breaking and jumping out of a sixth-floor window: the court held that there was an arguable claim that an operational duty under Article 2 arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled. (2) There were no domestic civil proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards the non-pecuniary damage suffered by her on her son’s death, and therefore there was a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2. In particular: (a) neither the inquest nor the internal inquiry were an effective remedy; (b) the HRA claim under Article 2 was struck out by the county court because of domestic case law at that time which required gross negligence; (c) the mother had no prospect of obtaining adequate compensation for non-pecuniary damage under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (she was not a dependent) or the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (death was instantaneous); (d) the lack of adequate compensation would itself reduce access to the civil remedy, as the legal aid 'cost/benefit analysis' would not be met and legal fees were unaffordable. (3) It was not necessary to examine the same complaint under Article 2 alone. (4) €7000 compensation was awarded. | 2012‑03‑24 15:14:48 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 — (1) The operational obligation under Article 2 can in principle be owed to a hospital patient who is mentally ill, but who is not detained under the MHA. (2) There was a 'real and immediate' risk to the patient's life of which the Trust knew or ought to have known and which it failed to take reasonable steps to avoid, so the obligation was breached. (3) The patient's parents were 'victims' within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. (4) They had not lost their victim status by settling a negligence claim, as (although it had in substance acknowledged its breach) the Trust had not made adequate redress. (5) The one-year limitation period in s7(5) HRA 1998 was extended becuase the extension was short, the Trust suffered no prejudice, the claimants acted reasonably in delaying, and there was a good claim. (6) The Court of Appeal's assessment of damages was upheld, and £5000 was awarded to each parent. | 2012‑02‑08 12:33:14 | 2012 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2010] UKSC 29 — The ECHR does not apply to soldiers serving abroad. | 2010‑07‑09 20:36:58 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 698 — Health trusts do not have the Article 2 operational obligation to voluntary patients in hospital, who are suffering from physical or mental illness, even where there is a "real and immediate" risk of death. [Caution.] | 2010‑07‑08 22:17:17 | 2010 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington [2010] EWHC 328 (Admin) — Inquiry into Adam Rickwood's death in custody. Bias. | 2010‑03‑02 20:48:52 | 2010 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon [2009] EWCA Civ 1367 — In this inquest to which Article 2 applied (suicide in prison) the Deputy Coroner misdirected the jury because she did not properly explain to them that, if they returned a verdict of suicide or accident, they could also append a narrative about the circumstances of the accident. However, in the circumstances, the verdict was not quashed. | 2009‑12‑23 18:59:49 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire [2009] EWCA Civ 1403 — A coroner is not obliged to leave to the jury a fact or circumstance which could have caused or contributed to the death but cannot be shown probably to have done so. | 2009‑12‑23 16:21:27 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Hurst v UK 42577/07 [2009] ECHR 1988 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court (case relates to Article 2-compliant inquests). | 2009‑12‑04 21:05:43 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] UKHL 13 — No need to hold Article 2-compliant inquest when death occurred before implementation of Human Rights Act 1998. | 2009‑12‑04 21:00:19 | 2007 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Re Maughland (Determination Into the Death of) [2003] ScotSC 10 — [Summary required.] | 2009‑11‑30 22:52:01 | 2003 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript
|
| Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2009] EWHC 1827 (QB) — The Article 2 "Osman" operational obligation to protect life applied to detained patients, but not to the claimant who was an informal patient on leave from the hospital at the time she committed suicide. [Caution.] | 2009‑08‑01 17:59:57 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (P) v SSJ [2009] EWCA Civ 701 — The refusal of the SSJ to hold an inquiry into P's detention in YOI Feltham was lawful: (1) Article 2 is only engaged where there is a "real and immediate" risk to life; the risk from P's self harming, while real, was not immediate. (2) There was no arguable breach of Article 3 in the delay in transfer to hospital. Had there been an arguable Article 3 breach: in general, an inquiry would not have been mandatory; in this particular case, it would not have been necessary as the relevant facts were known. | 2009‑07‑09 21:47:53 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Farah) v HM Coroner for the Southampton and New Forest District of Hampshire [2009] EWHC 1605 (Admin) — (a) A coroner sitting without a jury is entitled to give a verdict and a judgment dealing with the stipulated issues which are (i) who the deceased was; (ii) how, when, by what means and in what circumstances and where the deceased came by is death; and (iii) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death; (b) A coroner is entitled to give a judgment on matters which arise during the inquest and which are relevant to the determination of the stipulated issues; (c) The Court has jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised to declare comments made by a coroner as being unlawful. Such a declaration may be made if the comments (i) do not relate to any of the stipulated issues in any way; (ii) are matters of opinion; and (iii) are sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive of any party; (d) Declarations should be made that comments made by the defendant coroner in his judgment in respect of [various matters] are unlawful. | 2009‑07‑05 17:47:25 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Allen) v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2009] EWCA Civ 623 — An inquest into the death of a patient who was detained in a hospital under s3 had to satisfy the enhanced requirements of Article 2 | 2009‑07‑05 17:10:55 | 2009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| Roach v Home Office [2009] EWHC 312 (QB) — The costs of attending an inquest can in principle be recovered by way of costs in subsequent civil proceedings; the fact that the inquest work was covered by a public funding certificate had no bearing on the recoverability of the costs. | 2009‑06‑15 19:27:35 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWCA Civ 441 — (1) A British soldier who is on military service in Iraq is subject to the jurisdiction of the UK within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, so as to benefit from the rights guaranteed by the HRA while operating in Iraq, and not only when he is on a British military base or in a British hospital. (2) The inquest into the claimant's death must confirm with Article 2 standards in the scope of the investigation and nature of the verdict. | 2009‑05‑18 22:38:59 | 2009 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire [2009] EWHC 661 (Admin) — Coroners' inquests - deaths in custody - Article 2 | 2009‑04‑26 09:50:48 | 2009 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Platts v Coroner for South Yorkshire (East District) [2008] EWHC 2502 (Admin) — Inquest into suicide of person with mental disorder - scope of inquest and Article 2 - whether former girlfriend was properly interested person | 2009‑04‑18 11:32:49 | 2008 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2005] EWCA Civ 1440 — Where a person dies as a result of what is arguably medical negligence in an NHS hospital, the state must have a system which provides for the practical and effective investigation of the facts and for the determination of civil liability. Unlike in the cases of death in custody, the system does not have to provide for an investigation initiated by the state but may include such an investigation. The present system complied with Article 2. Inquest verdict quashed and new inquest ordered. | 2009‑04‑12 22:13:23 | 2005 cases, Detailed summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
|
| R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London [2004] EWHC 2922 (Admin) — Coroner's decision not to call jury or adjourn for expert evidence, and inquest verdict, were lawful. [Overturned on appeal.] | 2009‑04‑12 22:13:22 | 2004 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
|
| Edwards v UK 46477/99 [2002] ECHR 303 — Christopher Edwards was killed by a prison cellmate, Richard Linford; both suffered from schizophrenia. (1) The duty under Article 2 to protect life could extend to taking preventive operational measures to protect an individual against criminal acts of another, where the authorities knew (or ought to have known) of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual. Information was available identifying Linford as posing such a risk. The failure to pass on this information, and the inadequate screening of Linford, amounted to a breach of Article 2. (2) No inquest was held, and the trial did not involve witness evidence. The private inquiry which was held (a) had no power to compel witnesses, and (b) was held in private, with the parents unable to participate to the extent necessary to safeguard their interests: Article 2 was breached in this respect. (3) There was no appropriate domestic means of determining whether the authorities failed to protect the right to life or of obtaining compensation, so Article 13 (effective remedy) was breached. | 2008‑11‑27 23:17:24 | 2002 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
| R (Anderson) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London [2004] EWHC 2729 (Admin) — Unlawful killing verdict relating to restraint while subject to s136 MHA 1983 quashed. | 2008‑10‑15 19:23:00 | 2004 cases, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
|
| Michael Stone v South East Coast Strategic Health Authority [2006] EWHC 1668 (Admin) — The public interest required publication in full of the Michael Stone inquest report; the decision to publish was justified and proportionate, and did not constitute an unwarranted interference with Article 8; no breach of the DPA was involved. | 2008‑02‑22 16:15:56 | 2006 cases, Brief summary, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
|
Subcategories
This category has only the following subcategory.
To browse, click on the [+] and [-] symbols as appropriate. To learn more about a category, click on the category name. To view a particular page, click on the page name.
I
Article titles
The following 41 pages are in this category.
R
- R (Allen) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2009) EWCA Civ 623
- R (Anderson) v HM Coroner for Inner North Greater London (2004) EWHC 2729 (Admin)
- R (Antoniou) v Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (2013) EWHC 3055 (Admin), (2013) MHLO 98
- R (Boyce) v HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool (2022) EWHC 107 (Admin)
- R (Farah) v HM Coroner for the Southampton and New Forest District of Hampshire (2009) EWHC 1605 (Admin)
- R (Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London (2017) EWCA Civ 31
- R (Hurst) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) UKHL 13
- R (Lee) v HM Assistant Coroner for Sunderland (2019) EWHC 3227 (Admin)
- R (Letts) v The Lord Chancellor & Ors (2015) EWHC 402 (Admin), (2015) MHLO 72
- R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWCA Civ 1403
- R (Lewis) v HM Coroner for the Mid and North Division of the County of Shropshire (2009) EWHC 661 (Admin)
- R (LF) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London (2015) EWHC 2990 (Admin)
- R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde (2020) EWCA Civ 738
- R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde (2023) UKSC 20
- R (Maguire) v HM's Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde (2019) EWHC 1232 (Admin)
- R (Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire (2019) EWCA Civ 809
- R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London (2021) EWHC 1603 (Admin)
- R (Morahan) v HM Assistant Coroner for West London (2022) EWCA Civ 1410
- R (P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon (2009) EWCA Civ 1367
- R (P) v SSJ (2009) EWCA Civ 701
- R (Patton) v HM Assistant Coroner for Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire (2022) EWHC 1377 (Admin)
- R (Pounder) v HM Coroner for North and South Districts of Durham and Darlington (2010) EWHC 328 (Admin)
- R (Silvera) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire (2017) EWHC 2499 (Admin)
- R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2009) EWCA Civ 441
- R (Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence (2010) UKSC 29
- R (Speck) v HM Coroner for District of York (2016) EWHC 6 (Admin), (2016) MHLO 1
- R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2004) EWHC 2922 (Admin)
- R (Takoushis) v HM Coroner for Inner North London (2005) EWCA Civ 1440
- Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (2012) UKSC 2
- Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2009) EWHC 1827 (QB)
- Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust (2010) EWCA Civ 698
- Re Lee (2019) MHLO 73 (Coroner)
- Re Maughland (Determination Into the Death of) (2003) ScotSC 10
- Reynolds v UK 2694/08 (2012) ECHR 437, (2012) MHLO 30
- Roach v Home Office (2009) EWHC 312 (QB)
- Rushbrooke v HM Coroner for West London (2020) EWHC 1612 (Admin)
The following category (in the blue box) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: