Wilkinson, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for the Greater Manchester South District & Ors

A verdict of unlawful killing at an inquest is confined to murder, manslaughter, including gross negligence manslaughter and corporate manslaughter, and infanticide. It does not extend to statutory driving offences causing death, including causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving.

An inquest is a fact-finding process. It must not determine criminal or civil liability or apportion blame. Where driving causing death may amount to gross negligence manslaughter, the issue should be left on that basis alone, rather than by reference to the statutory driving offences.

The claimant sought judicial review of an inquest verdict concerning the death of a vehicle recovery technician who was struck by her car on an icy motorway. The coroner directed the jury that it could return a verdict of unlawful killing if satisfied to the criminal standard that the claimant had committed manslaughter, causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving.

The jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing. The claimant challenged the direction, principally on the ground that causing death by careless driving could not support that verdict. The central issue was the scope of unlawful killing in the coroner jurisdiction and whether the verdict and directions were legally adequate.

1. The claim succeeded. The court granted judicial review, quashed the jury’s verdict of unlawful killing, substituted a verdict of accident by agreement, amended the Inquisition accordingly and made no order as to costs.
2. The statutory history and the Coroners Rules 1984 showed that unlawful killing was intended to cover murder, manslaughter and infanticide. The expression did not acquire a wider meaning merely because later legislation created additional offences causing death.
3. The essential purpose of an inquest is to ascertain who the deceased was and how, when and where the deceased came by death. Under rule 42 of the Coroners Rules 1984, a verdict must not appear to determine criminal liability on the part of a named person or civil liability. The court applied the fact-finding principle stated in R v South London Coroner, ex parte Thompson (1982) 126 SJ 625, R v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1 and R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182.
4. Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving is an accident arising from, or contributed to by, carelessness. Its criminal consequences do not make it unlawful killing for inquest purposes. The same conclusion applies to causing death by dangerous driving and the other statutory driving offences causing death.
5. If the driving is capable of constituting gross negligence manslaughter, the issue may be left to the jury as manslaughter, and on that basis alone. The statutory driving offences should not also be left as alternative bases for unlawful killing. The combined direction was additionally inadequate because the verdict did not identify which offence the jury found proved.