Independent Police Complaints Commission, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Inner North London

A coroner’s discretion under paragraph 7(4) of the Coroners Rules 1984 to permit the IPCC to attend a post-mortem is broad, but should ordinarily be exercised in the IPCC’s favour where it is conducting a managed or independent investigation into a death in which police responsibility may arise. The IPCC’s statutory investigation forms part of the investigative process under article 2 of the Convention, and the coroner and IPCC are effectively partners in that process. The IPCC should give brief reasons for seeking attendance. Relevant considerations include the form of investigation, family interests and practical arrangements. Refusal remains possible, but should be rare. No general requirement exists for the IPCC to attend through a medical practitioner.

The IPCC sought judicial review of the coroner’s refusal to permit its representatives to attend a post-mortem examination following the death of a man shortly after arrest and contact with police officers. The IPCC initially sought attendance while deciding whether to conduct an independent investigation, and later undertook that investigation. On an urgent application, Collins J ordered that the post-mortem be delayed sufficiently to permit IPCC attendance. The investigation and post-mortem were subsequently completed, but the coroner requested substantive judicial review proceedings because the issue was of general importance.

The central issue was how a coroner should exercise the discretion under paragraph 7(4) of the Coroners Rules 1984 when the IPCC seeks to attend a post-mortem.

1. Declaration. No further relief was necessary. The judgment declared the legal position governing the exercise of the discretion.
2. Paragraph 7(4) confers a discretion, not a duty. Nevertheless, where the IPCC is conducting a managed or independent investigation into a death involving possible police responsibility, the coroner should ordinarily accede to a request for attendance. The IPCC’s statutory investigation forms part of the article 2 investigative process, which may consist of a combination of procedures. The coroner and IPCC are effectively partners in that process.
3. The IPCC should indicate, however briefly, why attendance may be useful. A sentence may suffice. The coroner may consider the form of investigation, the legitimate interests and wishes of the deceased’s family, and practical matters such as the number of people present and possible arrangements to address difficulties. The IPCC is to be assumed to act responsibly and need not establish in every case that attendance will produce a separate practical benefit.
4. The fact that the IPCC is not among those automatically entitled to attend under paragraphs 7(2) and 7(3), or to examine witnesses under rule 20, does not restrict the paragraph 7(4) discretion. Nor should the discretion be confined to cases where IPCC attendance assists the coroner’s own investigation.
5. Refusal may be justified in exceptional cases. No general rule requires the IPCC to be represented by a medical practitioner, although that may commonly be best practice. The approach is supported by article 2 jurisprudence and by the public law principles in Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223 and Padfield [1968] AC 997.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Collins J had earlier ordered that the post-mortem be delayed sufficiently to permit IPCC representatives to attend. The Administrative Court subsequently declared the legal position and granted no further relief.