Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London v Channel 4 Television Corporation

A witness summons under CPR 34.4 may be issued to obtain specified documents needed for the fair disposal of an inquest. The civil litigation concepts of relevance, necessity and proportionality must be adapted to the inquisitorial nature of an inquest. The coroner’s responsibility is to investigate relevant facts fully and fairly, and the court should not impose an unduly narrow or selective approach where that would impair the inquiry.

Confidential journalistic material is not absolutely protected. Where competing Convention rights are engaged, the court must balance them without according automatic priority to either right. Disclosure may be proportionate where the material is likely to assist the inquest, particularly where disclosure is initially restricted to the coroner and safeguards later dissemination.

The Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London sought a witness summons under CPR 34.4 requiring Channel 4 Television Corporation to produce documents obtained or created for a programme concerning the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Al Fayed.

Following discussions and an earlier order, three categories remained disputed: accounts of witnesses to events surrounding the deaths, material concerning paparazzo Serge Benhamou, and confidential documents relating to two protected sources. Channel 4 relied on lack of specificity, necessity and proportionality, and source protection under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The central issues were whether the documents were sufficiently identified and necessary for the inquests, and whether production of confidential material was justified.

1. The summons jurisdiction. CPR 34.4 embodies the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue a witness summons in aid of an inferior court or tribunal. The summons must seek specified documents rather than general disclosure or speculative material. Production must be necessary for the fair disposal of the matter or to save costs. Relevance is not decisive, and confidentiality is a factor rather than an absolute bar.
2. Application to an inquest. The civil litigation approach must be adapted to the inquisitorial character of an inquest. A coroner must ensure that relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated, while setting the bounds of the inquiry. The court should therefore be wary of imposing a narrow or selective evidential approach where the coroner seeks an exhaustive account, including material capable of allaying or confirming public suspicion and informing lessons for future public protection.
3. Specificity and necessity. The refined description of documents recording witness accounts of specified events left Channel 4 in no real doubt about what was required. The subject matter of the programme made it reasonable to conclude that the material would be relevant and necessary to provide the fullest and fairest account, even though the coroner could not identify the precise contents in advance.
4. Confidential journalistic material. Competing Convention rights must be balanced without automatic priority for either right. The public interest in a thorough and transparent inquest had to be weighed against freedom of speech, source protection and confidentiality obligations. In the unique circumstances, production to the coroner was proportionate because the material was highly likely to assist the inquiry.
5. Safeguards and outcome. Initial disclosure was restricted to the coroner, who was to examine and filter the material while applying necessity and proportionality before any wider disclosure. Orders were made in respect of all three outstanding categories. The order took effect urgently because relevant witnesses were due to give evidence.