Smith v HM Coroner for Cornwall

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, the court has a wide power to quash an inquest verdict and order a fresh investigation where this is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

Fresh evidence will normally justify a further inquest where it may reasonably reveal the substantial truth about the death, even if it may ultimately confirm the original verdict. A different verdict is not a pre-condition. Wider issues of public importance, regulatory deficiencies, evidence about what was known before the death, and the need to investigate materially different products or circumstances may together justify a fresh inquest.

The applicants were the parents of Richard Smith and the mother and stepfather of Kevin Branton. The two men died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the use of a Beko-manufactured gas cooker with its grill door closed.

The applicants sought, with the Attorney General’s consent, to quash the accidental-death verdicts recorded by the Cornwall coroner in 2012 and to obtain a fresh inquest, preferably conjoined with a forthcoming inquest into the deaths of members of the Cooke family involving a similar Beko cooker.

The issue was whether subsequent investigations and newly available evidence made another investigation necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. The application was granted. The verdicts were quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered, subject to directions concerning possible conjunction with the Cooke inquest. There was no order for costs.

2. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 provides a broad jurisdiction. The statutory test is satisfied where, because of fresh evidence or otherwise, another investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

3. The emergence of fresh evidence which may reasonably show that the substantial truth about how a person died was not revealed at the first inquest will normally support a fresh inquest. The court need not anticipate that a different verdict will result. Even evidence confirming the earlier verdict may justify a further public investigation.

4. The new material went beyond criticism of the original coroner. It raised issues about activity and knowledge in Ireland and the United Kingdom, the handling of products already sold, possible weaknesses in regulatory and testing systems, and whether users could be exposed to danger despite ordinary use.

5. The proposed Cooke inquest did not remove the need for a separate investigation. The products, relevant periods, and issues concerning knowledge before the deaths differed. Without a formal investigation of these deaths, the wider issues might not be fully examined. The absence of lost witnesses or materially impaired recollections supported the practicality of ordering a fresh inquest.

This was a first-instance application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The judgment does not state any appellate history.