Farrell v HM Coroner for North East Hampshire

An application for a fresh inquest under Coroners Act 1988, section 13, ordinarily depends on whether the new evidence could realistically lead to a different conclusion or desirable additional findings. The absence of that possibility is a powerful, though not conclusive, factor against a fresh inquest. Exceptional circumstances may nevertheless justify one, including a national disaster, a death engaging article 2, or an insufficiency of investigation requiring public clarification. A fresh inquest should not be ordered merely to provide a forum for unjustified allegations where it would cause cost, delay and distress without a possible forensic benefit.

Ray Farrell died from malignant mesothelioma in October 2016. The coroner conducted an inquest on the papers and recorded mesothelioma as the cause of death, without a post-mortem or toxicology. Mrs Farrell, acting with the Attorney General’s fiat, applied for the determination to be quashed and for a fresh inquest. She alleged that Ray’s wife, Amanda Burden, had deliberately administered inappropriate medication to hasten his death for financial gain.

The current coroner adopted a neutral position. The central issue was whether, in light of the material now advanced, it was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice to order a fresh inquest.

1. Application dismissed. The court concluded that there was no realistic possibility that a fresh inquest would reach a different conclusion or make desirable additional findings.
2. Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, the question is whether the interests of justice make a further investigation necessary or desirable. Fresh evidence showing that the substantial truth about the death was not revealed will normally support a fresh inquest. It is not necessary to show that a different verdict is likely, although the possibility of a different conclusion or desirable additional findings is often of central importance.
3. The absence of any realistic possibility of a different conclusion or desirable additional findings is a powerful, though not conclusive, factor against a fresh inquest. Exceptional circumstances may justify a fresh inquest despite the predictable outcome, including a national disaster, a death engaging article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or an insufficiency of investigation requiring concerns to be publicly addressed.
4. The evidence did not realistically support the allegation of deliberate poisoning. The contemporaneous medical evidence showed that the marriage was planned, Ray had capacity, the medication was prescribed and appropriately administered, his death was imminently expected, and his wish to avoid a post-mortem originated with him. The quantity and disposal of medication were also consistent with the medical evidence.
5. A fresh investigation would produce no new empirical evidence because Ray had been buried for more than four years and no tissues or blood samples survived. It would instead cause unwarranted distress, cost and delay. This was not an exceptional case in which justice required a fresh inquest merely to allay family concerns.

This was a first-instance application in the Administrative Court. The judgment describes the original inquest held by the senior coroner on 27 October 2016, which recorded mesothelioma as the cause of death. No lower-court judgment or appeal was identified.