Summary
Before the Human Rights Act 1998, international Convention obligations could guide a statutory discretion but could not displace a binding domestic interpretation of the Coroners Act 1988. The coroner nevertheless had to take those obligations into account when deciding whether to resume an adjourned inquest under section 16(3). Where article 2 required an effective investigation, refusal to resume was irrational. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could also operate in a limited retrospective way. It required section 11(5)(b)(ii) to be read, so far as possible, as covering the means and circumstances of death. The appeal was dismissed and the inquest was to resume.
Factual background
Troy Hurst was killed on 25 May 2000. The inquest was adjourned while criminal proceedings against the killer were pending. After a manslaughter conviction, the coroner declined to resume the inquest, concluding that the matters required for an inquest had already been established and that article 2 did not require further investigation.
The Divisional Court held that article 2 applied to the coroner’s decision despite the date of death and directed that the inquest resume: [2003] EWHC 1721 Admin. The Commissioner of Police appealed. After the Divisional Court’s decision, the House of Lords decided In Re McKerr, requiring the Court of Appeal to consider the effect of the Human Rights Act’s temporal operation, the pre-existing international obligations under article 2, and the interpretation of section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the Coroners Act 1988.
Held
- Appeal dismissed. The Divisional Court’s order that the coroner resume the inquest was upheld, although the Court of Appeal reached that result on different grounds.
- Before the Human Rights Act 1998, domestic tribunals had to give full weight to the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those obligations were particularly relevant when a statutory discretion was exercised. Under section 16(3) of the Coroners Act 1988, the coroner therefore had to consider the article 2 obligation to investigate. On the unchallenged findings of the Divisional Court, that obligation was compelling, and it was irrational to refuse to resume the inquest.
- The pre-Human Rights Act interpretation of section 11(5)(b)(ii) remained governed by R v HM Coroner for North Humberside ex p Jamieson. In that context, how meant by what means, and the inquiry was limited by the requirement for a clear and direct causal connection. Later Strasbourg jurisprudence could not displace that binding domestic authority in the Court of Appeal.
- Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 was an active obligation to read and give effect to legislation compatibly with Convention rights. The reference to legislation whenever enacted permitted a limited retrospective application where this did not unfairly disturb vested rights or settled interests. The public obligations in this case did not create the unfairness or legal uncertainty relevant to the presumption against retrospectivity.
- In Re McKerr concerned the non-retrospective domestic rights and remedies created by sections 6 and 7 of the Human Rights Act. It did not decide whether section 3 could require a compatible interpretation of coroners’ legislation in a case involving a pre-commencement death and a post-commencement decision. It therefore did not prevent the application of section 3 here.
- Applying section 3, section 11(5)(b)(ii) was to be read in the broader sense adopted in R(Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner: an inquest could investigate not only by what means but also in what circumstances the deceased came by death. Sedley LJ agreed. Sir Martin Nourse agreed with both judgments.
The court’s approach to earlier authorities
Available to signed-in members.
Appellate history
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed the Commissioner’s appeal and upheld the direction that the coroner resume the inquest.
- High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional Court held that article 2 applied to the coroner’s decision and directed resumption of the inquest: [2003] EWHC 1721 Admin.
Appeal route
- Appealed from[2003] EWHC 1721 (Admin)This appealappeal dismissed (unanimous; inquest to resume)
- This judgment [2005] EWCA Civ 890 Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Appealed to[2007] UKHL 13Outcomeappeal allowed by a majority (3–2)
Key cases cited
26 authorities cited.
- Ghaidan (Appellant) v. Godin-Mendoza (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 30
- Regina v. Her Majesty's Coroner for the Western District of Somerset (Respondent) and another (Appellant) ex parte Middleton (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 10
- Regina v. Her Majesty's Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire (Appellant) ex parte Sacker (FC) (Respondent) [2004] UKHL 11
- In re McKerr (AP) (Respondent) (Northern Ireland) [2004] UKHL 12
- Wilson and others v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40
- Regina v Lyons and Others (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) [2002] UKHL 44
- Regina v. Kansal [2001] UKHL 62
- Regina v. Lambert [2001] UKHL 37
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Launder [1997] 1 WLR 839
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind (Brind, Ex parte) [1991] 2 WLR 588
- Price & Ors v Leeds City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 289
- X v Y [2004] EWCA Civ 662
- Jordan [2004] NICA 29
- R (Williamson) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2002] EWCA Civ 1926
- R (A) v Lord Saville of Newdigate [2001] EWCA Civ 2048
- R (Mahmood) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 1 WLR 840
- Pearson v HM Coroner for Inner London North [2005] EWHC 833 (Admin)
- R (Bright) v Central Criminal Court (R (Alton) v Central Criminal Court, R (Rusbridger) v Central Criminal Court) [2001] 1 WLR 662
- Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council (2001) 34 HLR 1
- Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245
- R v Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, Ex parte Jamieson (Jamieson, Ex parte) [1995] QB 1
- R v Inner West London Coroner, ex parte Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139
- Secretary of State for Social Security v Tunnicliffe [1991] 2 All ER 712
- X and Y v Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 235
- Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330
- Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co
Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.
Cases citing this case
3 later cases · 2 positive · 1 negative
Most senior citing decisions:
- Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 434 applied
- Neil Martin Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2007] EWCA Civ 1041 not applied
- Armstrong & Ors v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1608 applied
Sign in for the full treatment table. A free account is enough.