Mueller v Her Majesty's Area Coroner for Manchester West

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, an irregularity or other problem is only the gateway to the separate question whether a fresh investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. A documentary inquest may be appropriate, but interested persons must be told clearly what evidence will be admitted or read and that they may object. Relevant documents, including a suicide note, must be admitted where the statutory conditions apply. An error will not justify a fresh inquest where the verdict and essential findings are unchallenged and a further investigation would produce the same result. The court must nevertheless address procedural fairness and may use its judgment to correct publicly reported inaccuracies.

Simon Mueller applied under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash the inquest into the death of his wife, Nicole Christine Putney, and to obtain a fresh investigation.

The coroner had proceeded on the papers after Mr Mueller and the deceased’s parents agreed that the inquest could be dealt with in that way. A police statement wrongly interpreted part of a handwritten note found at the scene as suggesting that Mr Mueller had been involved in an affair. The coroner summarised that interpretation at the inquest, but did not read the note itself. The verdict of suicide was not challenged.

The issues were whether there had been an irregularity or other sufficient problem, and whether a fresh investigation was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. Application dismissed. The court declined to quash the inquest or order a fresh investigation. The verdict and the essential findings concerning the identity of the deceased and the time, place and cause of death were not challenged.
2. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 involves two separate questions. An irregularity or other qualifying problem is the precondition for considering whether a new investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. The existence of such a problem does not itself require a fresh inquest.
3. For coronial purposes, an irregularity exists where the inquest has been conducted, or the surrounding circumstances are such, that there is a real risk that justice has not been done. The court may consider failures to comply with the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, including the safeguards governing written evidence.
4. The coroner should have explained that an interested person could object to written evidence. That safeguard was particularly important because the proposed documentary procedure meant that the family would not necessarily be present. The handwritten note was plainly relevant and, under Rule 23(3), had to be admitted as evidence.
5. Those procedural failures, together with the inaccurate interpretation of the note, brought section 13 into play. Nevertheless, the errors did not make a fresh investigation necessary or desirable. There was no challenge to the suicide verdict or to the remaining evidence, and a new inquest would produce the same result. The court also declined to treat the police officer’s evidence as necessarily inadmissible merely because it involved opinion or conjecture; strict criminal trial rules of evidence do not apply to coronial inquisitions, although fairness remains critical.
6. The court gave prospective guidance. Before using a documentary or read-out procedure, a coroner should identify in advance the statements and documents, explain what will be read or summarised, identify relevant material such as a suicide note, alert the family to potentially distressing evidence, and consider requests for relevant omitted material to be included.

The judgment concerns an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 arising from an inquest resumed on 8 September 2015. The application to quash the inquest and obtain a fresh investigation was dismissed.