Flower v HM Coroner for the County of Devon, Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon & Anor

For the purposes of Coroners Act 1988, section 13(1)(b), an inquest or investigation has not been “held” until the relevant inquest has been completed. An investigation commenced under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, suspended during criminal proceedings and not later resumed, remains incomplete. The coroner is therefore not functus officio, and the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 13(1)(b) to order a fresh investigation or quash findings. The appropriate course is for the interested person to invite the coroner to reconsider the decision not to resume the investigation. The court should not determine whether the substantive section 13 criteria would otherwise be satisfied where doing so might influence the coroner’s independent decision.

The applicant, the mother of Keith Brian Dance, sought orders under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 quashing the original inquest findings and requiring a fresh investigation. Mr Dance’s inquest had been opened and adjourned. The investigation was later suspended under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 while criminal proceedings concerning his death were pending. After the defendants were convicted, the coroner decided not to resume the investigation.

The central issue was whether, in those circumstances, an inquest or investigation had been “held” for the purposes of section 13(1)(b), thereby giving the High Court jurisdiction to order a fresh investigation.

1. Application dismissed. The court had no jurisdiction under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 because neither the inquest nor the investigation had been completed.
2. Under sections 6 and 13 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, an investigation includes an inquest as a constituent part. An investigation suspended under Schedule 1 and not resumed is incomplete. A part investigation is no more an investigation that has been “held” than a part inquest is an inquest that has been held.
3. The amendment adding “or an investigation” to section 13(1)(b) did not alter the substantive requirement of completion. It accommodated the different terminology used in the two Acts. The addition allowed reference to completed investigations, including their constituent inquests, conducted under the 2009 Act.
4. The reasoning in Terry v East Sussex Coroner [2002] QB 312 supported the conclusion that a coronial certificate or equivalent procedural step does not substitute for a completed inquest. The decisions in Fraser v HM Coroner for North West Wales [2010] EWHC 1165 (Admin) and R (Medihani) v HM Coroner for Inner South District of Greater London [2012] EWHC 1104 (Admin) did not determine the jurisdictional issue.
5. The coroner was not functus officio. He remained able to reconsider the decision not to resume the investigation and must resume it if he thinks there is sufficient reason for doing so under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the 2009 Act. The court declined to express any view on whether the substantive section 13 criteria would have been met.