Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London

Rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 permits exclusion of the wider public from an inquest, or part of it, in the interests of national security. It does not authorise exclusion of properly interested persons or their legal representatives.

Such an exceptional restriction on participation and transparency would require clear statutory language. The inquisitorial nature of an inquest does not create an implied power to receive and rely on undisclosed public interest immunity material where the Rules do not permit it. A coroner must base conclusions on open material, or decline to decide an issue that cannot properly be determined without undisclosed material.

The Secretary of State sought judicial review of a ruling by the Assistant Deputy Coroner conducting inquests into the deaths arising from the 7 July 2005 London bombings. The ruling concerned the scope of the inquests’ investigation into preventability and whether sensitive Security Service material could be considered in a closed hearing.

The claimant argued that “the public” in rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 included properly interested persons and their representatives, or alternatively that the coroner possessed an implied power to receive closed material. The central issue was whether rule 17 permitted that course.

1. Application dismissed. The Coroner’s construction of rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 was correct.
2. In context, “the public” in rule 17 means persons other than properly interested persons and their legal representatives. The Rules confer important participatory and information rights on properly interested persons, including rights to examine witnesses, object to documentary evidence and obtain documents. Those rights contain specified qualifications, but no national-security exception linked to rule 17.
3. The principle of open justice is fundamental. Exceptions are essentially for Parliament to create. The legislature would not be taken to have established a procedure with the exceptional consequence of unexplained conclusions based on material withheld from properly interested persons without clear words.
4. The inquisitorial character of an inquest is relevant context but does not displace its essentially judicial character or create an implied power inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The general case-management formulation in R v HM Coroner for Lincoln, ex parte Hay was subject to compliance with the Act and Rules and therefore did not assist the claimant.
5. Material protected by public interest immunity might, where possible, be disclosed in redacted, summarised or gisted form. However, undisclosed PII material must be disregarded in reaching and explaining the final conclusions. The Coroner could not reject a conclusion supported by open material because it conflicted with undisclosed material; she would have to rely on the open material or decline to decide the issue.
6. The Court noted that alternative statutory procedures existed or had been contemplated, including a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, but determining whether such a procedure should be used was not for the Court.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Permission was granted, but the application was dismissed.