Markham v HM Coroner Greater London (Western District)

Where fresh evidence establishes the cause of a death previously recorded as unascertained, the court may quash the original inquest and order a fresh inquest where this is necessary and desirable in the interests of justice. A substantive correction to the recorded cause of death requires a fresh inquest where the statutory registration procedure cannot itself effect the alteration. The fresh inquest may determine the appropriate verdict and cause of death in light of the new evidence.

The applicant sought, with the Attorney General’s fiat, an order under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 quashing the inquest into his son’s death and directing a fresh inquest.

The original inquest recorded a verdict of unknown natural causes because the medical cause was unascertained. Subsequent genetic testing established that the deceased had suffered from Long QT Syndrome, causing cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death. The General Register Office could not amend the death certificate because the requested change concerned the substance of the cause of death. The central issue was whether the new evidence justified a fresh inquest in the interests of justice.

1. Application granted. The court was satisfied that, under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988, it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice to hold another inquest.
2. The original investigation had been inconclusive. The post-mortem examination had identified no obvious cause of death, and the inquest therefore recorded the cause as unascertained and the verdict as unknown natural causes.
3. Later genetic testing provided fresh and compelling medical evidence. It established that the deceased had a pathogenic genetic mutation associated with Long QT Syndrome, which had caused cardiac arrest and sudden death.
4. The requested alteration could not be made administratively under section 29(4) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, because it would substantively alter the recorded cause of death. A fresh inquest was therefore the appropriate legal route, as illustrated by Attorney General v Harte (1987) 151 JP 819.
5. The inquest and inquisition were quashed, and another inquest was ordered. The local coroner was left to decide who should conduct it.