CORONER — Inquest — Coroner’s powers — Inquest dealing with statements in documentary form of witnesses resident outside the jurisdiction or unable to be found — Coroner intending to read statements to jury in exercise of common law power to admit hearsay evidence — Whether witnesses to be called to put statements in evidence — Coroners Rules 1984 (SI 552/1984), r 37

R (Paul and others) v Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London [2007] EWCA Civ 1259

CA: Waller, Latham and Dyson LJJ: 28 November 2007

{R 37 of the Coroners Rules 1984 was a complete code as to when documents could be put directly in evidence by a coroner without calling a witness. Hearsay evidence in documentary form which the coroner considered likely to be disputed could not simply be read to the jury even where the maker of the statement was unable to attend but must be put in evidence by a witness.

The Court of Appeal so stated when giving reasons for dismissing on 26 November 2007 the appeal of the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London against a decision of the Administrative Court (Thomas LJ and Aikens J) on 20 November 2007 [2007] EWHC 2721 (Admin) allowing the application for judicial review by Jean and Giselle Paul and the Ritz Hotel Ltd of a decision by the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London on 7 November 2007.

The coroner had ruled that r 37 of the Coroners Rules 1984 did not apply to restrict his common law power to admit into evidence hearsay statements in documentary form of witnesses who could not be found or who could not be compelled to attend by reading them out to the jury. The Administrative Court held that the statements could not simply be admitted by reading them but had to be admitted by calling a witness.

WALLER LJ said that there was no issue that at common law the coroner had the power to admit hearsay evidence. The appeal was not about the admission of hearsay evidence but the way in which that hearsay evidence could be placed before the jury. The claimants submitted that so far as documentary evidence was concerned , it could only be put in evidence directly by the coroner if it fell within r 37 of the 1984 Rules. The coroner contended that r 37 did not deprive him of his power to put hearsay evidence before the jury by any method he chose, including simply by reading from a document. If not, r 37 should be read purposefully to allow the coroner to read statements without calling a witness. His Lordship concluded that so far as documentary evidence was concerned r 37 was a complete code as to when documents could be put directly in evidence without calling a witness. It covered all documents both controversial and uncontroversial. It did not allow the admission of hearsay evidence in documentary form directly by the coroner which he considered likely to be disputed even where the maker was unable to attend.

DYSON and LATHAM LJJ agreed.

Appearances: Ian Burnett QC and Jonathan Hough ( Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the coroner; Richard Keen QC and Robert Weekes (Stuart Benson & Co, Reading) for Mr and Mrs Paul; Michael Beloff QC and Tom de la Mare (Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the Ritz Hotel Ltd; Edmund Lawson QC and Duncan Macleod (Directorate of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police) for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

Reported by: Alison Sylvester, barrister