Maguire & Ors, R (on the application of) v Leeds Safeguarding Children Board

A coroner has a wide area of judgment when determining the evidence and witnesses required for an inquest. A decision not to pursue a line of inquiry or call a witness is ordinarily unlawful only if it is Wednesbury unreasonable. A stricter conclusion may follow where the omission would prevent compliance with the procedural obligation under article 2.

The inclusion of a subject within an inquest’s scope does not require every potentially relevant witness to be called. The coroner may weigh the likely value of oral evidence against the foreseeable risk of harm to vulnerable witnesses. Protective measures such as screens and video links mitigate some trauma but do not necessarily remove the underlying harm of revisiting disturbing events.

Ann Maguire was murdered by a pupil while teaching at a school in Leeds. Several pupils had encountered the assailant or heard his threats that morning. Their police interviews showed that most believed he was joking, while some feared the consequences of reporting him.

The assistant coroner proposed to examine the school’s policies and practices concerning weapons and confidential reporting. He declined to call approximately nine pupils involved in the events because their police interviews were available, their further evidence would have little value and giving evidence risked causing psychological harm.

The family challenged that decision by judicial review. Holroyde J dismissed the claim in [2017] EWHC 2039 (Admin). The central issue on appeal was whether the coroner’s refusal to question or call the pupils was reasonably open to him.

1. Appeal dismissed. A coroner’s decisions about the scope of inquiry and the witnesses to be called involve a wide area of judgment. They may ordinarily be challenged only for Wednesbury unreasonableness. A coroner must nevertheless conduct a thorough inquiry within the determined scope and obtain sufficient evidence to fulfil the statutory purposes of the inquest. An omission may be unlawful if it prevents satisfaction of the procedural obligation under article 2.

2. The fact that a topic falls within the scope of an inquest does not require every potentially relevant witness to be called. The proposed questioning of the pupils fell within the defined scope only insofar as it concerned their knowledge of school rules about weapons and reporting. The broader inquiry into how they personally evaluated the assailant’s threats had been excluded from the scope.

3. No relevant policy or rule existed. Questioning a small and unrepresentative group of pupils therefore offered little or no value in determining the school’s general practices. Their recorded interviews already explained what they had seen, heard and done. Matters concerning the existence, communication and adequacy of school practices could appropriately be explored with staff and other witnesses.

4. The limited evidential value was properly balanced against the foreseeable risk that revisiting the events would harm the pupils. Common ground between the participants, together with the relevant views of Mrs Maguire’s sister and the pupils’ sixth-form vice-principal, provided an adequate evidential foundation for that risk. Individual inquiries or expert psychological evidence were unnecessary.

5. Rules 17 and 18 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 permit video-link evidence and screens. Those safeguards would not remove the underlying harm in this case. Comparisons with criminal, civil or family proceedings were unhelpful because the anterior issue was whether the pupils should be called at all.

6. The absence of further oral evidence would neither imperil the statutory function of the inquest nor prevent a full, fair and fearless investigation. The coroner’s decision was plainly rational. Treacy and Hickinbottom LJJ agreed with the Lord Chief Justice.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal in [2018] EWCA Civ 6, holding that the coroner’s refusal to call the pupils was rational.
• Administrative Court: Holroyde J dismissed the claim for judicial review in [2017] EWHC 2039 (Admin), holding that the coroner’s decision was reasonably open to him.