Pritchard, R (on the application of) v HM Coroners for Oxfordshire & Anor

Permission to appeal may be granted where the proposed grounds raise important and non-straightforward issues which receive some support from the authorities, even though the court considers the merits argument difficult.

The court granted permission to examine whether a continuing obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights could override the procedural time limit in CPR 54.5. It did not determine that issue. The court also regarded an express decision not to hold an Article 2-compliant inquest as materially different from a mere failure to hold one.

This was a renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of Sullivan J in the Administrative Court. Permission had previously been refused on the papers.

The appellant argued that the United Kingdom’s continuing obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not end with the passage of time where an investigation remained reasonably practicable. He submitted that the obligation could override procedural time limits in CPR 54.5. The court noted that the coroner had made a positive decision on 5 October 2005 not to conduct an Article 2-compliant inquest. The central issue was whether the proposed appeal raised an important and sufficiently arguable question for consideration by the full court.

Lord Justice Keene delivered the principal judgment. The application was a renewed application for permission to appeal, following refusal on the papers.

1. The appellant’s principal argument was that the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conduct a compliant investigation continued while it remained reasonably practicable to do so. It was submitted that this obligation could override procedural time limits, including the time limit in CPR 54.5.
2. Keene LJ expressed reservations about the strength of the argument. The case involved a specific decision by the coroner on 5 October 2005 not to conduct an Article 2-compliant inquest. It was therefore materially different from a mere failure to hold such an inquest.
3. Nevertheless, the authorities relied upon—Cyprus v Turkey [2002] 35 EHRR 30, Silih v Slovenia [2009] ECHR 71463/01 and Brecknell v United Kingdom [2008] 46 EHRR 42—provided some support for the arguments. The issues were important and not entirely straightforward. Those considerations justified permission despite the apparent difficulty of the proposed appeal.
4. Lord Justice Elias agreed. The order was: application granted.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 22 July 2009, granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
2. High Court of Justice, Administrative Court: The application arose from a decision of Sullivan J. The citation of that decision is not stated in the judgment.