Hicks & Ors, R (on the application of) v Senior Coroner for Inner North London & Ors

Open justice is fundamental to an inquest, but it may yield where restrictions are necessary to protect witnesses and preserve an anonymity order. The coroner must adopt measures that go no further than necessary. A direct threat from the persons excluded is not required where there is a real risk that disclosure of a witness’s identity to them will enable threats from others. Excluding bereaved relatives is highly undesirable and should occur only where absolutely necessary. Where practicable, the preferred arrangement is to retain their presence in the hearing room while using screens or other special measures.

Henry Hicks died after his moped collided with a stationary vehicle while two unmarked police cars followed him. During the inquest, the Senior Coroner had anonymised four police officers because of evidence of threats. After further social-media material was provided, she directed that the officers’ evidence would be heard in the main courtroom without the deceased’s immediate family present. The family could listen from another room by audio link.

The family sought judicial review, alleging that the direction unlawfully restricted open justice and their effective participation. Permission was granted, but the claim was dismissed.

1. Disposition. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted, but the application was dismissed.
2. The investigation of a death should take place in public. That principle is supported by the common law, the ECHR and the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013. Restrictions may nevertheless be imposed where necessary and only to the extent necessary.
3. The unchallenged anonymity order made in 2015 was proper on the evidence then available. Anonymity was a critical element of that order. Anything which disclosed the officers’ identities would frustrate its protective purpose.
4. The later social-media evidence established a real risk that threats from others would arise if the family learned the officers’ identities. The coroner was not required to find that the family themselves posed a deliberate and direct threat. Her conclusion was neither irrational nor unfair.
5. The direction preventing the officers from being seen by the family was therefore lawful and appropriate. Excluding family members from the hearing room is highly undesirable and should occur only when absolutely necessary. The closest participation consistent with witness protection remains desirable.
6. The preferable solution was to use a courtroom capable of accommodating screens or other special measures while allowing the family and public to remain present. During the hearing, arrangements were secured for the relevant evidence to be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice on that basis.

Gross LJ agreed entirely with Irwin J. He added that urgent judicial action can dispose of such matters rapidly, and that coroners and court-estate officials should negotiate and resolve special-measures requirements well before the hearing.

First-instance judicial review. The court granted permission but dismissed the claim.