WILLIAM LEESON (R on the application of) v HER MAJESTY’S AREA CORONER FOR MANCHESTER SOUTH

Permission for judicial review should be granted where the claim crosses the threshold of arguability. This does not involve a prediction that the claim will succeed.

A coroner has a wide area of judgment and considerable discretion when defining the scope of an inquest. A scope decision is challengeable only where it is infected by a public-law failing, such as unreasonableness in the public-law sense. The court must respect the high threshold applicable to that review. Where an inquest may consider unlawful killing, motive and circumstantial evidence may be relevant, although the coroner must decide whether their examination will assist the statutory enquiry.

The claimant sought judicial review of a coroner’s ruling limiting the temporal and evidential scope of a resumed inquest following the deceased’s death in Denmark and the acquittal of an accused person at a Crown court trial.

The ruling focused on events between the deceased’s arrival in Denmark on 3 June 2017 and her death on 6 June 2017. It treated financial and other circumstantial matters explored at the criminal trial as unlikely to provide direct evidence of the means of death. The claimant argued that the possible conclusion of unlawful killing required consideration of motive and circumstantial evidence. The central issues were whether the ruling was arguably unreasonable and whether permission should be refused for delay.

1. Permission granted. The claim crossed the threshold of arguability. That conclusion determined only that the claim was properly arguable and should proceed to a substantive hearing; it expressed no view on whether the claim would ultimately succeed.
2. The scope of an inquest is a matter of judgment for the coroner. It involves a wide area of judgment and considerable discretion. The enquiry is not defined by requiring every matter touching the broad circumstances of the death to be explored. The governing principles were drawn from Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests v Hambleton [2018] EWCA Civ 2081.
3. A ruling on scope is reviewable only where it is infected by a public-law failing, specifically unreasonableness in its public-law sense. This is a high threshold and falls within classic judicial review territory.
4. The claimant’s arguments were sufficiently arguable. They included the proposition that fact-finding on unlawful killing involves the same elements as a criminal trial, while taking place through a distinctive inquisitorial process and applying the civil standard of proof. Motive may in principle be relevant, and circumstantial evidence may be relevant even though it is not direct evidence.
5. There was no sufficient lack of promptness, hardship, prejudice or detriment to justify refusing permission on delay grounds, despite the impact of litigation on the inquest and the first interested party.

The judgment records that a judge had previously considered permission on the papers. No citation for that decision is stated. The present court granted permission for judicial review; the substantive claim remained to be determined.