Fraser v HM Coroner for North West Wales

A fresh inquest may be ordered only where it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. The court must assess that test practically and realistically. A fresh inquest will not ordinarily be justified merely to replace a recorded medical cause of death with a preferred verdict where the evidence and scientific position are unchanged, no further issue requires investigation, and the proposed inquest would serve no useful purpose. Following an adjournment under the Coroners Act 1988, the statutory registration scheme may result in a death being registered without a verdict. The fact that a criminal trial established that a homicide occurred does not itself require the coroner to resume the inquest.

Doreen Morris died after her bungalow was burgled and set on fire. An inquest was adjourned when Joseph Westbury was charged with her murder. The pathologist could not ascertain the precise medical cause of death, and the death was registered as cause of death not ascertained. Westbury was later acquitted.

Mrs Fraser obtained the Attorney General’s fiat and sought an order under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 for a fresh inquest. She sought only to obtain an unlawful-killing verdict and a corresponding alteration to the register. The central issue was whether a fresh inquest was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. The application was rejected. The court was not satisfied under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 that another inquest was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.
2. Section 16 required the coroner to adjourn the inquest after being informed that a person had been charged with murder and to send the prescribed certificate to the registrar. After the criminal proceedings, resumption was discretionary. The relevant question was whether there was sufficient cause to resume, assessed by whether resumption was practical and would serve a useful purpose, applying R v HMC for W London ex p Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139.
3. The proposed fresh inquest would add no new evidence or investigation. The criminal trial had explored the relevant factual and scientific issues, while the pathologist’s conclusion remained unchanged. The application therefore sought only a substituted verdict, rather than a further inquiry into the death.
4. The registration entry was not shown to contain an error of fact or substance. Under the statutory scheme, it accurately recorded that the medical cause of death was not ascertained. The fact that the criminal trial involved concessions that Mrs Morris had been unlawfully killed did not require that conclusion to appear in the register.
5. A fresh inquest would not guarantee an unlawful-killing verdict. The criminal standard would still have to be met, and the unchanged medical evidence and absence of direct evidence created a real possibility of an open or narrative verdict. Harte (1987) 151 JP 819 was distinguishable because that fresh inquest corrected an incomplete and potentially misleading registration entry.

Mrs Justice Rafferty gave the judgment. Lord Justice Pill agreed.