James v Senior Coroner For Essex

Under Coroners Act 1988, the discovery of new facts or evidence may justify quashing an inquest verdict and ordering a fresh investigation where this is necessary in the interests of justice. The court may grant that relief despite substantial delay and without knowing whether the fresh inquest will reach a different verdict. A fresh investigation can serve an important purpose by enabling the circumstances of death to be examined on a materially fuller evidential basis.

Dean Charles James died in 1997 from a methadone overdose. An inquest recorded an accidental-death verdict. Subsequent investigations disclosed further evidence concerning prescriptions issued by the deceased’s doctor, the doctor’s record-keeping and professional conduct, and the circumstances in which the fatal prescription was obtained.

The deceased’s mother obtained the Attorney General’s fiat and applied under s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash the verdict and direct a fresh investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Senior Coroner acknowledged that significant further evidence was available and did not oppose the application. The central issue was whether a fresh inquest was necessary in the interests of justice.

1. The court granted the application. The verdict at the inquest held on 6 November 1997 was quashed, and the Senior Coroner was directed to hold a fresh inquest.

2. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 empowers the court to quash an inquest finding and direct another investigation where, because of matters including the discovery of new facts or evidence, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

3. The original verdict had been reached on information and evidence which was now shown to have been incomplete. The newly available material included evidence relevant to the issuing of a second methadone prescription and to the deceased’s inability to have attended the medical team said to have authorised it.

4. A fresh inquest was necessary in the interests of justice notwithstanding the passage of time. It was not necessary to establish that the fresh inquest would produce a different verdict. The fresh investigation would serve the important purpose of examining the circumstances of the death on a much fuller evidential basis.

5. The fresh inquest was to have regard to the new evidence and information when reaching its decision. There was no order as to costs.

• Original inquest: an inquest held on 6 November 1997 recorded an accidental-death verdict.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the verdict was quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered.