Adath Yisroel Burial Society & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London

A coroner may adopt a policy governing expedition and prioritisation, but it must remain flexible and permit relevant individual circumstances to be considered. A policy which excludes religious reasons from consideration is an unlawful fetter on discretion, irrational and discriminatory. Resource constraints may be relevant, but cannot justify excluding religious reasons altogether. The law does not require strict chronological treatment or automatic priority for religious cases. A lawful policy must strike a fair balance between competing rights and interests. The public sector equality duty is procedural: unlawful discrimination in the resulting policy does not, by itself, establish a breach of that duty.

The claimants sought judicial review of a policy adopted by the Senior Coroner for Inner North London stating that no death would be prioritised because of the religion of the deceased or family. The claimants relied on public law principles, Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, and the public sector equality duty. The Chief Coroner supported the challenge to the policy as an unlawful fetter and irrational, while the Senior Coroner maintained a neutral position. The central issues were whether the policy lawfully governed coronial prioritisation and whether the process by which it was adopted breached the public sector equality duty.

1. Disposition. The claim succeeded on all grounds except the public sector equality duty. The Court declared the policy unlawful and quashed it.
2. Fettering and irrationality. A policy governing the exercise of coronial powers must not exclude relevant circumstances or prevent departure from the policy where appropriate. The coroner’s powers were predominantly statutory, with only a residual common-law element, so the principle against fettering applied. The policy unlawfully excluded religious circumstances from consideration and was irrational because it singled them out for exclusion without justification.
3. Articles 9 and 14. Early burial was a manifestation of religious belief. Although protecting the rights of others and managing scarce resources were legitimate aims, the blanket exclusion failed to strike a fair balance and was therefore disproportionate. Treating everyone identically can produce unequal treatment where circumstances differ. Resource limitations could explain why expedition was not possible, but could not justify excluding religious reasons altogether.
4. Equality Act. The policy placed persons with relevant religious beliefs at a particular disadvantage when compared with a hypothetical person without those beliefs. The Court could determine the issue on judicial review, and the same proportionality analysis established a breach of section 29 read with section 19.
5. PSED. The discriminatory effect of the policy did not itself prove a breach of section 149. The duty was procedural, and the evidence showed that the Senior Coroner had considered the impact on religious communities sufficiently to discharge it.
6. Guidance. A lawful policy may allow priority for religious or secular reasons where appropriate, provided it remains flexible and takes account of all relevant considerations. It must not impose automatic priority for religious cases. Individual decisions remain subject to the coroner’s margin of judgment.

Permission to bring the judicial review claim was granted by Holman J on 31 January 2018. The claim was determined at first instance by the Divisional Court.