Farah, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for the Southampton & New Forest District of Hampshire

A coroner sitting without a jury may give a judgment in addition to the verdict, but the judgment must remain directed to the statutory matters for determination at the inquest. The court may declare comments unlawful where they fall wholly outside those matters, express opinion, and are sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive to justify intervention. The jurisdiction is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly. Allegations that inadequate treatment by state agents shortly before death was racially motivated may be relevant to the circumstances of death and require investigation. A coroner should take particular care before criticising professional advisers, especially without giving them an opportunity to respond.

The claimant challenged parts of a 43-page judgment delivered by the defendant coroner alongside an unobjectionable narrative verdict concerning the death of Ali Bullaleh. The impugned passages included comments about the deceased’s alleged conduct, his assertions of racial discrimination, and the conduct of the family’s solicitors. The claimant sought judicial review and declarations of unlawfulness, but did not challenge the verdict itself.

The issues were whether a coroner had jurisdiction to give a judgment additional to the verdict, whether comments in that judgment were amenable to judicial review, and whether particular comments fell outside the coroner’s lawful functions.

1. Jurisdiction to give a judgment. A coroner sitting without a jury must give a verdict and certify it by an inquisition. The proceedings and evidence must be directed solely to determining who the deceased was, how, when, by what means, in what circumstances and where the deceased came by death, and the particulars required for registration. The coroner may also give a judgment dealing with those stipulated issues and with matters arising during the inquest that are relevant to their determination. The judgment must not infringe Rule 36 or Rule 42.
2. The investigative obligation under section 11(5)(b) of the 1988 Act and Rule 36(1)(b) was construed consistently with R v HM Coroner for the Western District of Somerset, ex parte Middleton and Another [2004] AC 182, so as to include the circumstances in which the deceased came by death. Allegations that inadequate treatment by emergency services was racially motivated and may have contributed to death were therefore matters the coroner was entitled, and potentially obliged, to investigate.
3. Judicial review and declarations. The court has jurisdiction, to be exercised sparingly, to declare comments in a coroner’s judgment unlawful. The relevant considerations include whether the comments are unrelated to the stipulated issues, matters of opinion, and sufficiently unfairly critical and offensive to justify intervention. The discretionary approach was consistent with Nichol v Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (1988) 87 LGR 435. An effective alternative remedy was unavailable because disciplinary proceedings would not remove the impugned comments from the judgment.
4. The comments concerning the deceased’s alleged over-familiarity with women and potential breach of the peace, and the suggestion that he was prepared regularly to make offensive racial allegations or was close to paranoia, were outside the stipulated issues, opinion-based and seriously or unfairly offensive. Declarations of unlawfulness were granted. Other comments about his preoccupation with race and the absence of evidence of discriminatory treatment did not meet the threshold.
5. The criticism of the family’s solicitors as entirely unprofessional was outside the stipulated issues and unjustified. Applying Ridehalgh v Horsfield [1994] Ch 205, solicitors are not improper, unreasonable or negligent merely because they advance a client’s claim or defence which later fails. A declaration was granted in respect of that passage. The court noted the limited precedent value of R (Mowlem plc) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Avon [2005] EWHC 1359 (Admin), where a similar declaration had been made without argument on jurisdiction.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the High Court (Administrative Court). The verdict was not challenged. Declarations were granted in respect of specified passages in the coroner’s accompanying judgment.