Terry v Craze

On a renewed application for permission to appeal concerning a coroner’s jurisdiction under the Coroners Act 1988, permission should be granted where an important and difficult statutory question has not been wholly resolved below and is fit for consideration by the Court of Appeal. The threshold for an arguable case that there is reasonable cause to suspect an unnatural death is not high. A Medical Appeal Tribunal decision accepting asbestos-related disease made it arguable that the disease caused the death. The issue was therefore not academic.

The applicant renewed an application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Divisional Court dated 29 November 2000. The application had initially been refused on paper. It concerned the effect of section 19 of the Coroners Act 1988 on the jurisdiction of the respondent coroner. The applicant relied on a Medical Appeal Tribunal decision accepting that the deceased suffered from an asbestos-related disease. The central questions were whether the statutory issue was fit for consideration by the Court of Appeal and whether there was an arguable basis for suspecting that the death was unnatural.

Permission to appeal granted; costs reserved. The Master of the Rolls gave a single judgment on the renewed application. The court did not determine the substantive appeal or finally construe the statutory jurisdiction.

1. The proposed appeal raised an important question concerning the effect of section 19 of the Coroners Act 1988 on a coroner’s jurisdiction. The area was difficult, and the Divisional Court’s judgment did not wholly resolve the difficulty. The issue was consequently fit for consideration by the Court of Appeal.
2. The application was not academic. The relevant threshold was whether an arguable case could be made that there was reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased had died an unnatural death. That threshold was not high.
3. The Medical Appeal Tribunal had accepted that the deceased was suffering from an asbestos-related disease. In light of that decision, it was at least arguable that the disease caused the death. The applicant therefore surmounted the threshold for permission.
4. The formal order was that the application was allowed, with costs reserved.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 5 February 2001, the renewed application for permission to appeal was allowed and costs were reserved.
• Divisional Court: Decision dated 29 November 2000, from which permission to appeal was sought. No citation is stated in the judgment.