| Coroner — Inquest — Coroner’s duties — Inquest adjourned pending criminal proceedings concerning deceased’s death — Coroner refusing to resume inquest on completion of criminal proceedings — Whether coroner in breach of obligation to investigate unexplained deaths — Whether obligation governed by statute — Coroners Act 1988, ss 11(5)(b)(ii), 16(3) — Human Rights Act 1998, s 3, Sch 1, Pt I, art 2
R(Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] UKHL 13
HL(E): Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry; Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance: 28th March
A coroner was not required to give effect to the investigative obligation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights when holding an inquest into a death which occurred before the Human Rights Act 1998 was implemented on 2 October 2000.
The House of Lords so stated when allowing an appeal (Baroness Hale and Lord Mance dissenting in part) by the Comr of Police of the Metropolis, as an interested party, from the Court of Appeal [2005]1 WLR 3892 which upheld the order of the Divisional Court [2003] EWHC 1721 (Admin) made on the application of the claimant, Mrs Christine Hurst, directing the coroner to resume the adjourned inquest into the death of her son, Troy Hurst, in May 2000. The Lord Chancellor intervened on the appeal.
LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD rejected the claimant’s submission that by virtue of s 3 of the 1998 ss 11(5)(b)(ii) and 16(3) of the Coroners Act 1988 were to be read compatibly with art 2. The “Convention rights” in s 3 as in s 6 of the 1998 Act meant the rights scheduled to that Act. The s 3 interpretive duty only arose where there would otherwise be a breach of a Convention right under domestic law. But since the art 2 right in domestic law did not arise in respect of deaths prior to 2 October 2000 (see In re McKerr [2004] 1 WLR 807), the coroner would not act unlawfully if he declined to resume the inquest. The approach in R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182 did not apply in all cases. Applying the approach in Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (Case C-106/89) [1990] ECR I-4135 the Middleton interpretation given by s 3 to s 11(5)(b)(ii) only applied to those deaths occurring after 2 October 2000 which involved actual or potential state responsibility; but where no right under art 2 would be infringed the domestic legislation was to be construed and applied in the ordinary way. On any resumed inquest R v Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, Ex p Jamieson [1995] QB 1 would apply: the question “how” the deceased came by his death would connote “by what means” and the verdict would be restricted to a brief factual and neutral statement. In exercising his discretion under s 16(3) the coroner did not have to take account of the United Kingdom’s international law obligations: see CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General [1981] 1 NZLR 172, 183. It was impossible to say that the unincorporated international obligation under art 2 was so obviously material that he was required to give it direct consideration; still less that he was obliged to give it effect. On any resumed inquest the wide-ranging findings desired by the claimant on the circumstances leading to her son’s death could not be made, whatever the scope of the inquiry. Accordingly, the coroner’s decision under s 16(3) of the 1988 Act was lawful.
LORD BINGHAM agreed; LORD RODGER delivered an opinion concurring with LORD BROWN; BARONESS HALE and LORD MANCE delivered opinions dissenting in the result.
|
Appearances: Ian Burnett QC Anne Studd and Beatrice Collier (Director of Legal Services, Metropolitan Police) for the commissioner; Lord Goldsmith QC, AG, and Philip Sales,QC (Treasury Solicitor) for the intervener; Keir Starmer QC and Danny Friedman (Bhatt Murphy) for the claimant.
|
