Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police & Ors v Dyer & Ors

Rule 18 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 gives a coroner discretion to direct screened evidence once one statutory threshold is met. The coroner must then consider all the circumstances, including the interests of justice and open justice. Under the common-law fairness test, genuine subjective fears may be weighed even without objective justification, although objective justification increases their weight. Open justice requires cogent justification for any restriction and the restriction must go no further than reasonably necessary. The majority held that the coroner had conducted the required balancing exercise and that the screening order should be restored.

Andrew Hall died shortly after being restrained by police officers following his detention in police custody. The coroner granted anonymity to sixteen officers and directed that they give evidence behind screens, visible to the coroner, jury, court staff and legal representatives but not to the public or the family.

Natalie Dyer, Mr Hall’s partner, successfully challenged the screening order in the Administrative Court. Jefford J quashed it so far as it prevented identified family members from seeing the officers, while leaving other parts of the order in place: [2019] EWHC 2897 (Admin). The Chief Constable and the Police Federation appealed. The central issues were the construction of Rule 18, the common-law fairness test, the weight given to open justice, and the objective basis of the alleged risk.

Majority

1. Appeals allowed. Flaux LJ, with Lewison LJ agreeing, held that the coroner’s order should be reinstated.
2. Rule 18(1) of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 confers a discretion to direct evidence from behind a screen. Rule 18(2) imposes one of two alternative threshold conditions: screening must be likely to improve the quality of the evidence or allow the inquest to proceed more appropriately. Under rule 18(3), the coroner must consider all the circumstances, including the views of witnesses and interested persons, the interests of justice and national security, and the effectiveness of questioning.
3. The application was made under the common law, not Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. The applicable fairness inquiry requires a balance of factors, including subjective fears, their effect on witnesses’ health, objective justification for those fears, the likely improvement in evidence, effective questioning and open justice. The principles in In re Officer L [2007] UKHL 36 were applicable.
4. Open justice is encompassed within the interests of justice and requires cogent justification for screening. However, the coroner’s ruling, read benevolently and pragmatically as a whole, showed that he recognised the importance of the family seeing the witnesses and balanced that interest against the officers’ fears and the credible threat posed by Qassim Hall. The coroner therefore did not misdirect himself or conduct an impermissibly narrow balancing exercise.
5. The judge was wrong to treat the issue as one of fact requiring appellate restraint under DB v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland [2017] UKSC 7. The critical issue was whether the coroner had erred in law.
6. Flaux LJ further considered that the judge’s distinction between the public and the family was illogical on the evidence, and that the risk to the officers was objectively established. The additional arguments concerning catharsis and demeanour did not alter the result. Any application by media representatives to see the witnesses was for the coroner.

Dissent

Males LJ would have allowed the appeal only to the extent of remitting the matter to the coroner. He considered that open justice required substantial weight and a compelling justification for screening the witnesses from the family. The coroner had not analysed whether the family’s alleged coercion by Qassim Hall presented a real evidential risk, or what material improvement screens would make to the reliability of the evidence. The quality-of-evidence threshold was necessary but not sufficient, and the coroner’s decision could not be saved by a benevolent interpretation.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeals allowed and the coroner’s screening order restored.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: judicial review partly succeeded; the screening order was quashed so far as it prevented identified family members from seeing the officers: [2019] EWHC 2897 (Admin).