Grice, R (On the Application Of) v

Where an inquest has been suspended after criminal proceedings, resumption is a matter for the coroner’s highly discretionary judgment. The question is whether there is sufficient reason to resume it, consistently with Article 2 of the ECHR.

In assessing that question, the coroner must consider the totality of the State’s investigative procedures. Article 2 does not require a particular procedure, a single investigation, a public hearing, or that every investigation satisfy every requirement. Separate investigations may collectively satisfy the requirements of independence, effectiveness, promptness, public scrutiny and next-of-kin involvement.

A criminal trial may form part of that totality, even though the family cannot actively participate in it. An Article 2-compliant inquest need not provide a wider public inquiry into policy or resourcing. A decision not to resume will not be irrational merely because a further prevention of future deaths report would be possible.

Shana Grice was murdered by her former boyfriend after repeated contact with Sussex Police concerning stalking, harassment and related incidents. Her inquest was suspended during the criminal proceedings, in which the defendant was convicted of murder.

Following the conviction, there were several further investigations, including an Independent Office for Police Conduct investigation, a Domestic Homicide Review, an HMICFRS inspection and police disciplinary proceedings. The Senior Coroner declined to resume the inquest, concluding that the other investigations had adequately addressed the relevant issues.

Shana Grice’s mother sought judicial review, arguing that the refusal breached the investigative obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR and was irrational. The central issue was whether the criminal trial and subsequent investigations collectively satisfied that obligation.

1. Outcome. The judicial review claim was dismissed. The Coroner’s decision not to resume the inquest was neither incompatible with Article 2 of the ECHR nor irrational.
2. Under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a suspended investigation may not be resumed unless, but must be resumed if, the senior coroner thinks there is sufficient reason for resuming it. That is a highly discretionary judgment.
3. Where Article 2 is engaged, the coroner must consider the totality of the available investigative procedures. The form of investigation is not prescribed. A set of separate investigations may satisfy the Convention requirements collectively. The relevant minimum requirements are that the investigation is initiated by the State of its own motion, independent, effective, reasonably prompt, subject to sufficient public scrutiny, and involves the next of kin to the extent necessary to safeguard legitimate interests.
4. It is not necessary for each component of the investigative process to satisfy every requirement. Limited family involvement or public scrutiny in one procedure does not invalidate the process if the totality meets the minimum standards. A criminal trial may therefore be taken into account, notwithstanding the family’s limited role in criminal proceedings.
5. The criminal trial examined the relationship and events leading to the killing, and the sentencing judge publicly identified serious police failings. The IOPC investigation was independent, detailed and comprehensive, identified individual and organisational failings, and produced a publicly available report. The Domestic Homicide Review, HMICFRS inspection and disciplinary proceedings supplied further scrutiny and accountability. Collectively, these procedures satisfied Article 2.
6. An Article 2 inquest would not necessarily provide the broad policy or cultural inquiry sought by the claimant. Inquest conclusions should generally remain concise and should not usually address policy and resourcing matters. The possibility of a further prevention of future deaths report did not make the Coroner’s decision irrational, given the nature and extent of the existing enquiries.

High Court (Administrative Court): The Senior Coroner’s decision of 3 January 2020 not to resume the inquest was upheld. The judicial review claim was dismissed.