Evans, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan

Article 8 may be engaged where an inquest publicly identifies an individual and gives reasons for an unlawful-killing verdict. Any interference must be lawful, connected to the statutory purpose and no more extensive than necessary. Rule 42 prevents an inquest verdict from appearing to determine the criminal liability of a named person, but it does not generally prevent a coroner from considering or leaving an unlawful-killing verdict merely because the responsible person may be identifiable from the circumstances. At the permission stage, the court should assess the coroner’s reasons in the round. It should not conduct a fine-grained reappraisal of every evidential point where the coroner applied the correct test and reached a conclusion reasonably open to her.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Cardiff and Vale coroner’s decision following an inquest into Margaret Thomas’s death. The coroner concluded that the death resulted from an overdose administered by the claimant and recorded a verdict of unlawful killing. Her reasoning repeatedly named the claimant and considered whether the conduct amounted to gross negligence manslaughter, although no criminal liability was formally determined.

The claimant challenged the decision under Rule 42 of the Coroner’s Rules 1984, Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Wednesbury principle. The court had to decide whether the challenge was arguable and whether permission should be granted.

1. Permission. Permission was granted only on the narrower Rule 42 issue. Permission was refused on the wider Article 8 argument and on the alleged Wednesbury unreasonableness.
2. Rule 42. Rule 42 prohibits a verdict framed so as to appear to determine the criminal liability of a named person. The reasoning in a document headed “Summing-up and Verdict” may form part of the verdict where it immediately precedes the conclusion that there is no alternative but to return an unlawful-killing verdict. Because the coroner repeatedly named the claimant and linked her conduct to that conclusion, the narrower challenge was arguable.
3. Wider Article 8 argument. Article 8 was engaged, but the claimant’s wider submission was unarguable. Article 2 requires the statutory inquiry into how a person died to be interpreted broadly, including the circumstances of death. Those obligations do not generally disable a coroner from considering or leaving an unlawful-killing verdict merely because the person responsible may be identifiable, provided the verdict complies with Rule 42.
4. Reasonableness. The court applied an enhanced level of scrutiny because Article 8 was engaged. Nevertheless, it considered the coroner’s reasons in the round. The coroner had identified the relevant difficulties, stresses, mitigating circumstances and excuses, applied the correct legal test, and considered the seriousness of the breach in all the circumstances. Her conclusion was reasonably open to her, notwithstanding the Crown Prosecution Service’s different view.
5. The judicial review was directed to be heard before Easter 2011, with a one-day estimate and an expedited transcript.

Permission had previously been refused by Dobbs J. On renewal, the Administrative Court granted permission only on the narrower issue concerning compliance with Rule 42 of the Coroner’s Rules 1984 and refused permission on the remaining grounds.