Chaudhari, R (on the application of) v Walthamstow Coroners Court

Allegations against a coroner do not establish apparent bias merely because the coroner strongly defends her impartiality. Evidence of improper conduct or prejudgment is required. A coroner has discretion to refuse to hear an unqualified advocate, and a non-expert witness has no entitlement to give expert opinion on the cause of death. A pathologist’s opinion is evidence for the inquest, not a conclusive determination. Once an inquest has concluded, challenges directed only to its preliminary stages may become academic. The application was dismissed because the evidence disclosed no proper ground for judicial review or for quashing the verdict.

Mrs Chaudhari sought permission to appeal against the refusal by Elias J on 10 September 2001 of permission to apply for judicial review. The proceedings concerned the conduct of an inquest into the death of her five-month-old child. The family disputed a pathologist’s conclusion that the death was from natural causes and alleged that the coroner had acted improperly, including by excluding certain witnesses, refusing to hear an unqualified representative, withholding documents and becoming biased.

By the time of the Court of Appeal hearing, the inquest had taken place and had returned a verdict of death by natural causes. The central issues were whether the alleged procedural defects or apparent bias disclosed an arguable ground for judicial review, and whether the court should consider amendment to challenge the verdict.

Application dismissed. Lord Justice Sedley found no basis for interfering with the refusal of permission.

1. The allegation that the coroner had selected only an Asian doctor from those involved in the child’s care had no substance without evidence that the selection was influenced by race or some other irrelevant consideration. The position might have differed if relevant white doctors had been unaccountably excluded.
2. The coroner had discretion to hear an unqualified advocate. The refusal to hear Dr Adoko disclosed no ground for criticism. A family member could be heard on relevant factual matters if she had such evidence, but she had no entitlement to give an opinion on the cause of death because she was not a qualified expert.
3. The pathologist’s concluded view that the death was from natural causes was part of the evidence, not a conclusive decision. The conclusion had to be reached by the inquest after considering that and any other material evidence.
4. The coroner’s strong response to accusations of conspiracy did not demonstrate bias. Judicial officers are expected to deal objectively with people who object to them. Unsupported or intemperate accusations cannot themselves force a judicial officer out of office. Evidence of misconduct would require careful consideration, but none was shown here.
5. The complaints about disclosure and the medical treatment were unsupported on the material before the court. The treatment issues were matters for the inquest, which the family had boycotted. Since the inquest had concluded, the original challenge was academic. Sedley LJ stated that even if the application had been amended to seek quashing of the verdict, the same grounds would not have justified relief.

No order as to costs.

1. Administrative Court — Elias J refused permission on 10 September 2001 to apply for judicial review.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The application for permission to appeal was dismissed on 26 March 2002: [2002] EWCA Civ 495.