Goldstein, R (On the Application Of) v Her Majesty's Coroner for Inner London District Greater London

Where a coroner’s duty to investigate a death conflicts with a family’s religious objections to an invasive autopsy, an interim court should consider whether the investigation can proceed by a proportionate, staged approach. Where non-invasive or minimally invasive procedures would preserve the option of a later full autopsy, and there is no concern about foul play or wider lessons from the death, that approach may appropriately protect religious rights while maintaining the coroner’s ability to determine the cause of death.

The claimant family challenged the coroner’s insistence that a fully invasive autopsy was required following the deceased’s apparent death from a head injury. An injunction had restrained any postmortem examination. The family proposed an external examination, full-body CT or magnetic resonance imaging, and, if necessary, a needle biopsy by Professor Roberts. The coroner relied on expert advice supporting a traditional autopsy. The immediate issues were whether the injunction should be discharged and whether a staged procedure could lawfully reconcile the coroner’s investigative duty with the family’s rights under article 9 of the European Convention.

1. Interim disposition. The court declined fully to discharge the injunction. It made a carefully tailored order permitting Professor Roberts to undertake non-invasive procedures, followed by minimally invasive procedures if he considered them necessary, and a fully invasive traditional autopsy if he considered that necessary to ascertain the cause of death.
2. Competing interests. Article 9 was engaged. The coroner’s obligation to conduct a thorough investigation into the cause of death potentially conflicted with the family’s religious rights. The article 9(2) qualifications had not been fully considered or supported by evidence, so the court could not form even a provisional view on them at the interim stage.
3. Proportionality in the circumstances. There was no suspicion of foul play and no suggestion that the circumstances of death raised wider lessons. Since the proposed non-invasive and minimally invasive procedures would not impair a later full autopsy, the staged approach would preserve the family’s religious interests without preventing the coroner from fulfilling her duty.
4. If Professor Roberts’ report satisfied the coroner, no further litigation would be necessary. If it left the coroner in reasonable doubt, the parties were to return for further interim directions. The coroner was given 21 days to file acknowledgment of service and summary grounds if she concluded that she could not fulfil her duty on the basis of the report.

Not stated in the judgment. The court recorded that an injunction had previously been granted by Mr Justice Globe, but this was not described as an appeal.