Al Fayed, R (on the application of) v Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London

A coroner’s decision whether it is expedient to call further evidence is a contextual judgment for the coroner. The coroner may consider the evidence already heard, the issues properly arising in the inquest and whether the proposed evidence would assist the jury. An inquest need not pursue increasingly remote or speculative theories merely because marginal evidence was admitted earlier. Once the relevant facts have been fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated, the coroner may call a halt to evidence of marginal or no relevance. The court will not interfere where that assessment is rational, logically reasoned and reasonably open to the coroner.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions made during the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Al Fayed. He challenged the Assistant Deputy Coroner’s refusal to call the Duke of Edinburgh as a witness and to arrange for questions to be put to the Queen. The requests concerned a late and speculative theory that members of the security services might have acted independently in a climate of hostility towards the Princess. By the time of the decisions, evidence from nearly 250 witnesses had been heard and the inquests were nearing completion. The central issue was whether the proposed evidence was expedient for the statutory purposes of the inquests.

1. The applications were dismissed. The Coroner was entitled to refuse to call the Duke of Edinburgh or to put questions to the Queen.
2. Under section 11(2) of the Coroners Act 1988, the question whether it was expedient to examine a person was a matter primarily for the Coroner’s judgment. The assessment had to be made in the context of the facts and issues relevant to the particular inquests.
3. The Coroner was entitled to take account of the vast body of evidence already called, the limited evidence remaining, and the absence of evidence supporting the newly advanced theory. The fact that evidence of marginal relevance had previously been admitted did not require the Coroner to pursue increasingly remote material.
4. The mere assertion that a topic was an issue did not establish that further evidence was required. The proposed evidence had to be capable of assisting the jury in answering the statutory questions, including how the deceased came by their deaths.
5. The Coroner had been entitled to conclude that the relevant facts had been fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated, applying the approach described by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in R v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex parte Jamieson [1995] 1 QB 1. His reasoning was neither illogical nor unreasonable, and the Divisional Court would not interfere.

The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.