Worcestershire County Council & Anor v HM Coroner for the County of Worcestershire

A claim of public interest immunity over Serious Case Review individual management reviews and information reports requires a balance between the public interest in candour and the public interest in justice. Disclosure to a coroner is materially different from disclosure to the public. The coroner’s inquisitorial function gives him a wide, fact-sensitive responsibility to determine the scope of the inquest and the lines of inquiry. Questions of relevance and necessity are therefore less restrictive than in ordinary civil litigation. Where the documents are potentially relevant and are sought only by the coroner, the public interest in a full and properly informed inquest may outweigh the interest in preserving confidentiality. Any later disclosure to interested parties or the public remains for the coroner to determine, subject to the court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

Following the death of a looked-after child who was a known suicide risk, the defendant coroner opened and adjourned an inquest. The second claimant Local Safeguarding Children Board conducted a Serious Case Review and produced individual management reviews, information reports and a draft overview report. The Board disclosed the draft overview report but refused to disclose the individual reviews and reports.

The coroner obtained permission for witness summonses under CPR 34.3(2)(c) and CPR 34.4(1). The claimants applied to set them aside under CPR 34.4(2), relying on public interest immunity and lack of necessity. The central issue was whether the documents should be disclosed to the coroner for the purposes of his investigation.

1. Application refused. The application to set aside the witness summons requiring production of the individual management reviews and information reports was declined.
2. Serious Case Reviews are directed to inter-agency learning and improvement, rather than determining how a child died, culpability or disciplinary responsibility. The statutory guidance recognises the value of openness within the review process and the confidentiality of the individual reports. That provided sufficient merit for a potential public interest immunity claim.
3. The potential immunity was not absolute. Under Conway v Rimmer and another [1968] AC 910, the court had to balance the public interest in protecting the review process against the public interest in open justice and the particular requirements of the inquest.
4. The coroner’s scope is essentially a matter for him, subject to the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. An inquest is inquisitorial, and may extend beyond the immediate means of death to circumstances relevant to Article 2, Rule 43 reports and systematic failures. The court will interfere with the coroner’s determination only in exceptional circumstances.
5. Disclosure to the coroner alone materially weakened the confidentiality objection. The coroner could use the documents to assess the scope of the inquiry, identify witnesses and documents, pursue relevant lines of inquiry and frame questions. The draft overview report served a different purpose and did not remove the potential relevance of the fuller underlying material.
6. The order did not determine whether any material should later be disclosed to interested parties or the public. That question was left to the coroner, with notice and an opportunity for the Board and contributing agencies to make representations and seek supervisory review.