Stanley, R (on the application of) v Her Majesty's Coroner for Inner North London

In an inquest into a death caused by state agents, Article 2 requires an effective, independent and rigorous investigation. The coroner must ensure that the jury hears relevant evidence and that potentially prejudicial evidence is scrutinised before admission.

Evidence of the deceased’s previous convictions or of a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute should be admitted only in exceptional circumstances. The parties should first be notified and heard in the absence of the jury, and the coroner should give reasons. Relevant independent expert evidence should be called where necessary to secure a sufficiently rigorous investigation.

Henry Stanley was shot by two Metropolitan Police firearms officers after a member of the public mistook a chair leg in a bag for a sawn-off shotgun. An inquest conducted by the defendant coroner returned an open verdict.

The claimant, Mr Stanley’s widow, sought judicial review, contending that the inquest was inadequate under domestic law and Article 2. The officers initially contested some issues but accepted that the treatment of previous convictions, the Crown Prosecution Service recommendation, the giving of reasons and the expert evidence was flawed. The parties agreed that the verdict should be quashed and that a fresh inquest should be held before a different coroner. The court therefore did not determine whether unlawful-killing or neglect verdicts should have been left to the jury.

1. Outcome. The open verdict at the June 2002 inquest was quashed. A new inquest was ordered before a different coroner.
2. Where there is a credible accusation that a state agent caused death unlawfully, Article 2 requires an investigation of the utmost rigour, conducted independently and openly. Its purposes include reducing the risk of similar deaths, giving the bereaved the beginnings of justice and assuaging public anxiety. The coroner must construe the applicable rules compatibly with those requirements.
3. Evidence of the deceased’s previous convictions was irrelevant. The officers had not known of the convictions; the deceased’s role in an old armed robbery was uncertain; and any inference from the convictions to the circumstances of the shooting would have been impermissible. The evidence was also prejudicial and risked undermining the investigative functions of the inquest.
4. As a general rule, before evidence of previous convictions is admitted, the parties should be notified and heard in the absence of the jury. The coroner must assess relevance and probative value against prejudice, and give a reasoned ruling.
5. The Crown Prosecution Service’s decision not to prosecute was potentially prejudicial and should not have been placed before the jury without prior submissions. Such a decision is provisional and must not displace the jury’s fact-finding function. If exceptionally admitted, the jury should be told of its provisional character and instructed not to be influenced by it.
6. The coroner was required to give brief reasons for significant decisions, particularly decisions excluding substantial verdicts from the jury and decisions about expert evidence.
7. The refusal to call relevant independent firearms experts was inconsistent with the requirement of an independent and rigorous investigation. The evidence could bear on the officers’ conduct and possible gross-negligence manslaughter. The expert-evidence complaint therefore succeeded.
8. The court made no determination on the unlawful-killing and neglect verdict issues because the evidence at the fresh inquest was likely to differ.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by Harrison J, who ordered expedition. The Administrative Court quashed the inquest verdict and ordered a fresh inquest before a different coroner.