Power v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Inner North London

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, the High Court may order a fresh inquest where irregularity, insufficiency of inquiry, new evidence or other circumstances make this necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

The court must assess the deficiencies cumulatively. Relevant considerations include the possibility of a different verdict, the extent to which the original inquiry failed to investigate important matters, the significance of new evidence and the effect of delay. A fresh inquest may be ordered even where the available evidence may confirm the original verdict.

The claimant sought an order under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 quashing the 1998 inquest into the death of her husband and directing a fresh inquest. The jury had returned an open verdict.

The grounds were irregularities in the original proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry and newly available evidence. The claimant relied particularly on the absence of advance disclosure, identical police statements, the failure to hear an important witness, inadequate forensic testing and later expert reports concerning the police pursuit and possible contact between the vehicles. Article 2 of the ECHR was raised initially but was not pursued.

1. The claim succeeded. The original inquest was quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered.
2. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 is expressed in broad terms. The controlling question is whether the interests of justice make another investigation necessary or desirable.
3. The relevant principles are of general application. The court should consider the possibility, rather than probability, of a different verdict; the shortcomings in the original inquest; the need to investigate new evidence; and the lapse of time. A different verdict is not a precondition where significant new evidence may instead confirm the earlier verdict.
4. The original inquest was irregular. The claimant had been denied an informed opportunity to test the police officers’ evidence about the pursuit, including the significance of their effectively identical statements. An important independent witness’s evidence had been read without giving the unrepresented claimant a proper opportunity to seek an adjournment for oral evidence.
5. There had also been an insufficiency of inquiry. The original investigation had not adequately addressed forensic testing of the police vehicle, the motorcycle and the relevant tyre marks. The later reports raised substantial questions about the speed and direction of the police vehicle and possible contact between the vehicles.
6. The cumulative effect of the irregularities, inadequate investigation and relevant new evidence outweighed the considerable delay and uncertainty about witnesses and physical evidence. A new jury would be better placed to assess the evidence through properly informed questioning and objective consideration of the forensic material.

The judgment records that an inquest held in 1998 returned an open verdict. On an application authorised by the Attorney General, the High Court ordered that the inquest be quashed and that a fresh inquest be held.