View source for R (Boyce) v HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool (2022) EWHC 107 (Admin)

{{Case
|Date=2022/01/21
|NCN=[2022] EWHC 107 (Admin)
|ICLR=[2022] WLR(D) 42
|ICLR ID=2022000328
|Other citations=[2022] 4 WLR 15
|Court=High Court (Administrative Court)
|Judges=Belcher
|Parties=Kelly Anne Boyce, HM Senior Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool, Middlesbrough Borough Council, Tees Valley Care Ltd
|Cites=YL v Birmingham City Council (2007) UKHL 27
|Sentence=Inquest and care order
|Summary=(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.
|Subject=Inquest cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2022/02/10 09:17:20 PM
}}