HM Senior Coroner for the Eastern Area of Greater London v Whitworth (Family of)

Under Coroners Act 1988, the question is whether the interests of justice make a further inquest necessary or desirable. The discovery of fresh evidence which may reveal that the substantial truth about a death was not disclosed at the original inquest will normally satisfy that test.

A different verdict need not be anticipated. A fresh inquest may be ordered even where the new evidence might confirm the earlier conclusion, provided that public disclosure of the fuller evidential picture is necessary or desirable. Where the original inquiry was materially insufficient because important evidence was unavailable, the High Court may quash the original inquisition and order a fresh investigation.

The Senior Coroner applied under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, with the authority of the Solicitor General, for the inquisitions into the deaths of Daniel Whitworth and Gabriel Kovari to be quashed and fresh inquests ordered.

The original inquests had produced open conclusions. Afterward, a specialist police investigation uncovered substantial new evidence, and Stephen Port was convicted of murdering both men and two others. The central issue was whether the new facts and evidence made fresh inquests necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. Application granted. The inquisitions dated 19 June 2015 concerning the deaths of Daniel Whitworth and Gabriel Kovari were quashed. A fresh investigation into each death was ordered. There was no order as to costs.
2. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 requires the court to determine whether, because of matters including the discovery of new facts or evidence, another investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.
3. Applying Her Majesty’s Attorney General v Her Majesty’s Coroner of South Yorkshire (West) and Her Majesty’s Coroner of West Yorkshire (West) [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin), 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 make a fresh inquest both desirable and necessary. The court need not predict a different verdict as a condition of granting relief.
4. Here, the new evidence materially changed the evidential picture. It included forensic links to Stephen Port, expert evidence concerning the handwriting of the note found with Mr Whitworth, evidence of Port’s contacts with all four deceased men, evidence that an apparent informant was Port using an alias, evidence concerning drugs and other offences, and the criminal convictions for the four murders. The original evidence was therefore inadequate to permit a sufficient investigation, through no fault of the Coroner.
5. The court did not decide whether the original police investigation was itself inadequate in a way requiring further investigation, or what the scope of any fresh inquest should be. Those matters were for the coroner conducting the fresh inquests.
6. The court observed that it would be sensible for the suspended inquests into the deaths of Anthony Walgate and Jack Taylor to proceed before the same coroner and at the same time. No order was made concerning those inquests.