VALERIE EARL v HER MAJESTY’S SENIOR CORONER FOR EAST SUSSEX

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, the controlling question is whether a further investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. Fresh credible evidence may justify a new inquest even where a different verdict is not anticipated. An insufficiency of inquiry includes failure to pursue obviously relevant evidence or leaving significant issues unresolved. A coroner’s verdict may also be quashed on ordinary public law grounds where relevant evidence points towards a specific conclusion and the verdict is irrational or wholly inconsistent with that evidence. The court need not finally determine every proposed new evidential avenue before ordering a new investigation.

The claimants, Jessie Earl’s parents, applied under section 13(1)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988, with the Attorney General’s authority, to quash the open verdict recorded at the 1989 inquest into Jessie’s death and obtain a new investigation. Jessie had disappeared in 1980 and her skeletal remains were found at Beachy Head in 1989. The original police investigation was rapidly closed and the Coroner recorded an open verdict.

The claimants relied on the inadequacy of the police and coronial inquiries, the tightly knotted bra found with the remains, the location of the body, evidence excluding natural causes and suicide, and material from Operation Silk, a later police investigation which concluded that Jessie had been murdered. The central issues were whether there had been an insufficiency of inquiry, whether the open verdict was unreasonable, and whether a fresh investigation was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. Outcome. The Court quashed the 27 July 1989 inquisition and directed a new investigation into Jessie Earl’s death. A different coroner was required to conduct it, and the investigation was to begin urgently.

2. Statutory test. Although section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 lists particular circumstances, the ultimate question is whether another investigation is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. Fresh evidence may justify a new inquest even where it may confirm the original verdict. It is not necessary for the Court to predict a different verdict.

3. Insufficiency and irrationality. The original inquiry was insufficient because important lines of investigation were left incomplete and significant evidence was apparently not pursued or taken into account. The Court held that the open verdict was also unreasonable on public law principles, even applying a criminal standard of proof. The body’s virtually inaccessible location and the discovery of Jessie’s only surviving item of clothing, a tightly knotted bra capable of functioning as a restraint, pointed strongly towards unlawful killing. Evidence from Jessie’s GP supported exclusion of medical causes, while the evidence concerning her mental state and diary supported exclusion of suicide.

4. Further supporting circumstances. The firm conclusions of two Sussex Police senior investigating officers that Jessie had been murdered independently supported a new investigation. The Profiler’s report was less compelling because it relied on statistical comparisons, but remained relevant supporting evidence. The destruction of the bra and soil samples further underlined the need to permit the coronial process to investigate the remaining evidence and maintain public confidence.

5. New scientific evidence. The Court did not need to determine finally whether exhumation, DNA testing, or the Pink Teeth and Pollen investigations should be pursued. Those matters were left to the new coroner, who might reach a verdict without them.