Hambleton & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Reilly & Ors

The scope of an inquest is determined by a coroner’s fact-sensitive judgment about whether an issue is sufficiently connected to the circumstances of the death. It is not a conventional public-law discretion. The statutory limits on verdicts concerning criminal liability do not, without more, prevent an inquest from investigating the identity of persons involved in a violent death. The investigation must remain subject to fairness, reasonableness and proportionality, and must not become a proxy criminal trial. Article 2 does not impose an immutable requirement that an inquest identify perpetrators where the State has undertaken, or continues to undertake, reasonably possible police investigations.

The claimants were relatives of persons killed in the 1974 Birmingham bombings. The Birmingham Inquests, opened in 1974 and suspended during criminal proceedings, were resumed under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Senior Coroner ruled that investigation of the identities of those who planned, planted, procured or authorised the bombs was outside the scope of the resumed inquests.

The claimants sought judicial review, arguing that the Coroner had applied the wrong legal approach under sections 5 and 10 of the 2009 Act and that Article 2 required the inquests to investigate the perpetrators. The central issues were whether perpetrator identity was sufficiently connected with the circumstances of death and whether the State’s procedural duty under Article 2 required the coronial investigation to undertake that task.

1. Disposition. The Coroner’s decision excluding the Perpetrator Issue was quashed and remitted for reconsideration. A mandatory order and declaration under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 were refused.
2. In an Article 2-compliant inquest, “how” the deceased came by his or her death includes the means and circumstances of death under section 5(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The coroner must decide whether the proposed investigation is sufficiently connected to the death, and where the chain becomes too remote. That is a judgment, not a conventional discretion. The reviewing court may therefore intervene because the decision is wrong, while giving appropriate respect to the coroner’s expertise and practical assessment.
3. The Coroner had failed to ask whether the identity of the bombers was sufficiently closely connected with the deaths to form part of their circumstances. Section 10(2)(a) concerns the framing of the determination, not the permissible scope of investigation. The statutory restrictions and the distinction between coronial and criminal functions remain relevant, but they do not automatically exclude perpetrator identity. Fairness, evidential reliability, the passage of time, practical complexity, available police resources and proportionality may all bear on the decision.
4. It would be difficult, and potentially inconsistent with finality and fairness, to conduct a full inquiry into whether persons acquitted of homicide were in fact guilty. However, the size and age of the investigation and previous police failures were not overwhelming considerations, and the position could change if significant new information emerged. A jury may explore facts bearing on criminal or civil liability, although its determination may not determine criminal liability of a named person.
5. Article 2 permits the fact-finding and accountability functions to be shared between coronial and criminal authorities, provided the State’s response is independent, effective, reasonably expeditious, subject to sufficient public scrutiny and appropriately involves the next of kin. Article 2 did not require these inquests to identify the perpetrators. Police investigations remained the appropriate mechanism, and the material did not establish that West Midlands Police lacked the necessary independence or capacity.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The Coroner’s ruling was quashed and remitted for reconsideration. No mandatory order or declaration was made.