Jones, R (On the Application Of) v HM Senior Coroner For North Wales (East And Central)

At the permission stage of a judicial review concerning an ongoing inquest, the court must avoid prejudging matters for the coroner. Permission may nevertheless be granted where there is an arguable case, with a realistic prospect of success, that the coroner unlawfully excluded evidence central to the proper scope of the inquiry. Where the inquest’s established focus raises a causation question concerning whether available support might have affected the outcome, a sufficiently full and fair investigation may arguably require evidence addressing why the deceased acted as he did. The coroner need not conduct a separate inquiry into the truthfulness of evidence that has lawfully been excluded as irrelevant.

The claimant sought renewed permission to challenge procedural decisions made during an adjourned inquest into the death of a Welsh Assembly Member. The proposed judicial review concerned the senior coroner’s refusal to hear evidence from two witnesses and potentially to read evidence from two others. The claimant argued that the excluded evidence was relevant to the scope and sufficiency of the investigation, including whether support was available during a cabinet reshuffle and why the deceased acted as he did. A further ground alleged that other evidence called into question the truthfulness of an excluded written statement.

The central issues were whether either ground was arguable and whether the court should intervene before the inquest had concluded.

1. The application was a renewed application for permission. The claimant therefore had to show an arguable case with at least a realistic prospect of success. The court was not required to reach a firm conclusion on whether judicial review would ultimately succeed.

2. The court rejected the proposed challenge based on an alleged duty or public interest in investigating whether an excluded written statement was truthful. Where the coroner had lawfully excluded the evidence as irrelevant to the task of the inquest, he was not required to conduct an inquiry within the inquiry into its truthfulness.

3. The principal ground was different. The excluded evidence was arguably relevant to a full and sufficient investigation into why the deceased acted as he did. The conduct of the inquest had arguably created a reasonable appearance that the availability of support during the relevant cabinet reshuffle was a significant focus of the inquiry.

4. That focus arguably engaged Schedule 5, paragraph 7 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009, concerning a possible report for the prevention of further deaths. It also raised a causation question: whether any lack of support identified by the coroner would have made a difference. It was at least arguable that this question could not be addressed without as full an investigation as was reasonably and fairly possible into why the deceased acted as he did.

5. The court emphasised that intervention during an ongoing inquest required particular caution. The inquest remained for the coroner to consider and determine in the first instance. Permission was granted on the primary ground, subject to rejection of the challenge based on investigating the truthfulness of the excluded statement.

First-instance judicial review permission decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.