Cooper, R (On the Application Of) v HM Coroner for North East Kent

Challenges to an interlocutory coroner’s ruling about the conclusions to be left to a jury should ordinarily not be entertained by the High Court. Although jurisdiction exists, intervention in the middle of an inquest risks disrupting the hearing, impairing the jury’s recollection, duplicating the coroner’s assessment of live evidence, and causing delay and expense. The eventual conclusion can ordinarily be quashed if it is legally or factually unsustainable. The court cannot exclude every exceptional case, but the remedy is rarely appropriate before the inquest has concluded.

The claimant sought permission to judicially review the Senior Coroner’s decision to leave a conclusion of unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter to the jury at a resumed inquest. The coroner had initially decided not to leave that conclusion, then adjourned the inquest while the matter was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service under rule 28 of the Coroners’ Rules 1984. After the CPS decided not to refer the matter for further police investigation, the coroner changed her position but gave no reasons.

The central issue was whether the Administrative Court should intervene before the inquest had concluded.

1. Permission refused. The court had jurisdiction to entertain the challenge, but such challenges should not ordinarily be entertained before an inquest is complete.
2. The approach reflected the concerns identified in Khan v HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire [2002] EWHC 302 Admin. Mid-inquest intervention may interrupt proceedings, particularly where a jury must retain evidence and assess witness reliability after a lengthy adjournment. A jury might ultimately reject the impugned conclusion, making the judicial review unnecessary. The High Court also lacks the coroner’s advantage of hearing the evidence live, and obtaining a reliable transcript and reasons may itself cause delay.
3. The court drew an analogy with the settled approach to magistrates’ proceedings, authoritatively clarified in R v Hereford Crown Court ex p Rowlands [1998] QB 110. Intervention is directed to matters that would vitiate the proceedings or cause substantial unfairness, rather than ordinary challenges to interlocutory rulings. The example of Butler v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 Admin, involving alleged misconduct or bias, illustrated the exceptional character of possible intervention.
4. The unusual delay in this inquest did not outweigh the remaining difficulties. In particular, the court could not reliably determine on the incomplete material whether the coroner was right to leave unlawful killing to the jury. If an unsustainable conclusion were later reached, it could be quashed and justice achieved.
5. Separately, the judge suggested that the coroner should consider giving the interested parties provisional written reasons for changing her mind and allow further submissions. This was expressly guidance rather than a direction, because that aspect of the decision was not challenged.

The claimant’s permission application was refused. The judgment was ordered to be transcribed and published at public expense. No substantial costs order was made on the permission application.