Allman v Coroner for West Sussex

A person seeking status as a properly interested person at an inquest must have a reasonable and substantial interest in matters within the proper scope of the inquest. The status cannot be used to investigate beliefs, theories or hypothetical possibilities unsupported by evidence connecting them with the particular death. Under the Coroner’s Rules 1984, an inquest is confined to identifying the deceased and determining how, when and where the death occurred, together with the particulars required for registration. Evidence consisting only of conjecture or opinion, without an evidential link to the death, is irrelevant and inadmissible. A judicial review claim must also be filed promptly; the three-month period under CPR 54.5 is a long-stop, not an automatic entitlement to bring proceedings.

Mr John Allman sought permission to challenge an Assistant Deputy Coroner’s decision refusing him status as a properly interested person under rule 20(2)(h) of the Coroner’s Rules 1984. He wished to question witnesses and pursue his belief that the deceased had been subjected to electromagnetic harassment or third-party criminal intervention before dying after being struck by a train.

The inquest had subsequently taken place and the jury concluded that the deceased had died by suicide while in a disturbed state of mind. A judge had earlier refused permission and interim relief. On renewal, the court considered both the refusal of interested-person status and the alleged defects in the completed inquest.

1. Application dismissed. The claim concerning the pre-inquest ruling was filed out of time because CPR 54.5 requires prompt filing within the three-month long-stop period. No extension of time was justified.
2. In any event, the Assistant Deputy Coroner had lawfully concluded that Mr Allman lacked a sufficiently substantial interest. His purpose was principally to pursue a belief that the death involved electromagnetic weapons or third-party intervention. The relevant possibilities had been investigated in detail by the British Transport Police, which found no evidence of third-party involvement.
3. The proper scope of an inquest under rules 36(1) and 36(2) of the Coroner’s Rules 1984 is limited to determining who the deceased was, how, when and where he came by his death, and the particulars required for registration. The coroner and jury must not express opinions on other matters.
4. Mr Allman’s evidence about his dealings with the deceased, his beliefs, the deceased’s state of mind and his reported lack of sleep was relevant and was placed before the jury. Wider evidence about the general capabilities or alleged use of electromagnetic weaponry was irrelevant because it had no evidential link to this death. It was also conjectural and opinion-based, and therefore inadmissible under rule 36(2).
5. There was consequently no arguable error of law in the ruling or in the conduct of the inquest. No relevant evidence had been excluded and no necessary jury direction had been omitted. Permission to seek judicial review was refused.

The renewed application followed an earlier refusal of permission and interim relief by Lindholm J on 4 May 2011. The inquest then proceeded on 5 and 6 May 2011. The present court refused permission and dismissed the claim.