Sparrow v HM Coroner for District of East Somerset & Anor

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, shortcomings in an earlier inquest do not automatically justify a fresh inquest. Where relevant evidence has been lost, the court must ask whether there is a reasonable prospect that a new inquest would remedy the inadequacy. A fresh inquest may nevertheless be necessary or desirable in the interests of justice where newly discovered evidence materially affects the explanation for the death and casts doubt on the existing verdict. A verdict based on only part of the relevant evidence should not remain undisturbed where the balance of the evidence suggests that it may be unreliable.

The claimant applied, with the Attorney General’s fiat, under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash the inquisition into the death of Judge Andrew Vyvyan Chubb and obtain a fresh inquest before a different coroner. The original inquest had recorded an accidental death following a fire in the deceased’s garage. The claimant relied on insufficiency of inquiry and fresh evidence concerning the cause of the fire, the medical cause of death and the possibility of suicide. The central issue was whether a further inquest was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

The application succeeded. The court quashed the inquisition and directed that a fresh inquest be held before a different coroner.

1. Insufficiency of inquiry. The initial police investigation had material shortcomings, including the failure to obtain fuller pathological evidence and to examine potentially relevant clothing. However, the mere loss of evidence through an insufficient inquiry was not enough. A fresh inquest would be justified on that ground only where there was a reasonable prospect that it would remedy the inadequacy. Where the evidence had been irretrievably lost, ordering another inquest would serve no purpose.
2. Fresh evidence. The new evidence materially altered the evidential picture. It made the accepted theory that an explosion accidentally initiated the fire more difficult to sustain and raised questions about why the deceased had not escaped. It also provided substantial support for the possibility that he had contemplated or committed suicide, including evidence concerning his state of mind, his visit to the roof of the court and statements attributed to his wife.
3. Interests of justice. The court recognised the distress likely to result from reopening the death. Nevertheless, the existing verdict had been based on only part of the relevant evidence, and the balance of the evidence suggested that it might be open to doubt. It would therefore be contrary to the interests of justice to leave the verdict undisturbed. The fresh inquest was ordered before a different coroner under section 13.