Jones, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for North Wales (East & Central) & Ors

A coroner conducting a non-jury inquest under section 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 has a broad discretion to determine the scope of the inquiry, the evidence required and the witnesses to be called. The coroner need not hear every witness with potentially relevant evidence, provided that sufficient evidence is obtained to answer the statutory questions. The exercise of that discretion is subject to ordinary rationality principles. Judicial review is inappropriate where the challenge rests on speculation about what additional evidence might show or how the coroner might later conduct the inquest. A Jamieson inquest is confined to determining who died and by what means, when and where the death occurred.

The claimant, the former First Minister of Wales, sought judicial review of decisions made by HM Coroner for North Wales (East and Central) during the inquest into the death of Carl Sargeant AM. The coroner refused to admit evidence from Bernie Attridge, Aaron Shotton, Louise Magee and Michelle Perfect, and declined to investigate an allegation that Mr Attridge had given dishonest evidence.

The claimant alleged failures to take relevant matters into account, reliance on irrelevant matters, inadequate reasons, failure to conduct a full and fair investigation, excessive emphasis on the statutory questions and irrationality. The central issue was whether the coroner’s assessment that the existing evidence was sufficient, and that the additional evidence was unnecessary, was unlawful or irrational.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court held that the coroner had directed himself correctly by reference to Jamieson, the Chief Coroner’s Law Sheet No 5 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
2. A non-Article 2 inquest is a Jamieson inquiry. Its statutory scope is limited to identifying who died, and determining how, when and where the deceased came by his death. The question how means by what means, as explained in R v Smith v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner [2011] 1 AC 1, rather than the broader Article 2 question of the circumstances of death.
3. The coroner has a wide discretion over the scope of the investigation, the admission of evidence and the calling of witnesses. The coroner is not required to call every witness who might have relevant evidence, but only sufficient witnesses to conduct a proper inquiry and discharge the statutory function.
4. The coroner’s approach involved a two-stage assessment: first, whether the proposed evidence was relevant; and secondly, if relevant, whether it was necessary to consider credibility. His decision that the existing evidence was sufficient was reasonably open to him. The possibility that further evidence might demonstrate misconduct or dishonesty did not make its admission legally necessary.
5. The grounds alleging failure to consider relevant matters, consideration of irrelevant matters and inadequate reasons were rejected. The court also rejected the submission that concern about distress to the family had improperly influenced the decision. Avoiding unnecessary distress was a legitimate consideration.
6. The irrationality challenge failed. The decision was within the coroner’s discretion and was not Wednesbury unreasonable. Courts should not intervene on speculation that a coroner or tribunal might later exceed its powers or act unfairly. The inquest was to be resumed and concluded without further unnecessary delay.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the High Court (Administrative Court). The claim challenging the coroner’s evidential decisions was dismissed.