Paul & Ors v Deputy Coroner of the Queen's Household & Anor

The coroner of the Queen’s household is subject to the general powers and obligations of the Coroners Act 1988, except where expressly excluded. The statutory power to transfer an inquest therefore applies to that coroner.

A jury is mandatory where the circumstances of a death may possibly recur and are prejudicial to the safety of a section of the public, including where the danger is preventable or controllable. Before exercising any residual discretion about a jury, a coroner should determine the scope of the inquest and consider relevant family views and the policy underlying the mandatory provisions.

The appearance created by the title and institutional position of the coroner of the Queen’s household may also be relevant when choosing jurisdiction.

The claimants were Mohamed Al Fayed, the parents of Henri Paul and the President of the Ritz Hotel. They challenged rulings made by Lady Butler-Sloss, sitting as Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey, concerning the proposed inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed.

The challenges concerned jurisdiction, the decision to hold the inquests without a jury, the choice of the Queen’s household jurisdiction, and alleged compromise of independence or impartiality following publication of the Stevens Report.

1. Jurisdiction. The application of the Coroners Act 1988 to the coroner of the Queen’s household was not restricted to the provisions expressly preserved by section 29 and Schedule 2. The reference to a coroner’s “district” could sensibly include the area defining the household coroner’s jurisdiction. The consolidating legislation was not intended to remove powers previously available to that office. Section 14 therefore empowered Dr Burton to transfer the Princess’s inquest to the coroner of the Queen’s household, and permitted a later transfer away from that jurisdiction.
2. Jury. Section 8(3)(d) imposed a mandatory duty to summon a jury. The circumstances included the pursuit of the deceased by paparazzi on motorbikes, creating a real possibility of recurrence and a danger to persons pursued and bystanders. The danger was capable of prevention or control by legislation or other measures. The claimants’ application succeeded on this ground and the decision to proceed without a jury was quashed.
3. The court adopted the preventability or controllability approach discussed in R v HM Coroner at Hammersmith ex parte Peach (No 1 and 2) [1980] 1 QB 211, but rejected any additional requirement that the risk affect a substantial section of the public.
4. As an additional observation, a coroner should ordinarily determine the scope of the inquest before deciding whether sections 8(3) or 8(4) apply. In exercising the discretion under section 8(4), the coroner should consider the family’s views and whether the circumstances resemble those addressed by the mandatory provisions. If allegations of state involvement were within the scope of the inquests, that consideration might strongly support a jury.
5. Choice of jurisdiction. The decision to act as Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household was flawed. A household jury would consist of household officers and would create an unacceptable appearance in these inquests. The coroner should also have considered the public appearance created by the title and institutional position, notwithstanding her personal independence. The decision was therefore quashed.
6. The challenge based on support for publication of the Stevens Report failed. Applying Porter v Magill [2002] 1 AC 357, publication did not create a real possibility of bias for a fair-minded and informed observer. The coroner could continue, provided it was made clear that all issues remained open and the jury was directed to disregard media material.

The judgment was a first-instance judicial review of rulings made by the Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household and Assistant Deputy Coroner for Surrey on 8 January 2007.

• High Court (Administrative Court): granted judicial review and quashed the decisions to conduct the inquests as Deputy Coroner of the Queen’s Household and without summoning a jury.