Case details
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
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro 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.
Lower court decision
Appeal to higher court
Key cases cited
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.
Cases citing this case
This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.