Aineto, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove

The Divisional Court considered whether the coroner should have summoned a jury under section 8(3)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988 because the death might have been caused by an accident reportable to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The court interpreted regulation 10(2)(b) of the Regulations to cover not only active loading or unloading but also work "connected with" loading or unloading. Applying that test to the facts, the court concluded the driver was engaged in work connected with loading at the time of the fatal incident and therefore the coroner had reason to suspect a reportable accident. The coroner erred in not summoning a jury. The court quashed the verdict and directed a fresh inquest with a jury before a different coroner. The court also made provisional costs orders: the claimant to have costs of the judicial review proceedings but no order for costs in respect of the section 13 proceedings.

The claimant, sister of the deceased, sought judicial review and made an appeal under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 after a coroner's inquest concluded the deceased died of an accident. The claimant argued that (i) the coroner failed to summon a jury as required by section 8(3)(c) of the Act because the death appeared to be caused by an accident reportable to the Health and Safety Executive; (ii) the coroner should have adjourned for the Health and Safety Executive, for legal representation and for translation of materials; (iii) there had been insufficient inquiry; and (iv) there were breaches of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The court considered as a preliminary point whether the coroner was under a duty to summon a jury under section 8(3)(c). The legal question turned on the proper construction of regulation 10(2)(b) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995, namely whether the regulation applies only where loading or unloading was actually taking place at the moment of the accident or more broadly where a person was engaged in work connected with loading or unloading. The court held that the words "work connected with" import a broader test and may include activities closely related in time, space and purpose to loading or unloading even if the loading/unloading was not actively taking place at that instant.

Applying that approach to the facts, the court found the driver was driving for the purpose of servicing refuse bins and his driving at the moment of the collision was closely connected in time and space with the intended loading. The coroner therefore had reason to suspect a reportable accident and should have summoned a jury. The court quashed the inquest verdict and ordered a fresh inquest with a jury before a different coroner. The court noted unresolved issues about the Health and Safety Executive's investigation and the family's grievances and treated the procedural failure as sufficiently serious to require a fresh inquest. The court ordered that the claimant recover her costs of the judicial review proceedings but made no order for costs in respect of the section 13 proceedings. The court also gave the parties liberty to agree and, if necessary, return to court to resolve practical difficulties about transfer to a different administrative district.

The court quashed the coroner's verdict and ordered a fresh inquest before a different coroner and a jury, holding that the coroner should have summoned a jury under section 8(3)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988 because the driver was engaged in work connected with loading the refuse onto the vehicle within the meaning of regulation 10(2)(b) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. The court exercised its discretion to order a fresh inquest because the failure to summon a jury was a serious procedural irregularity. Costs: claimant awarded costs of the judicial review proceedings; no order as to costs for the section 13 proceedings.