Margaret Hunter v HM Assistant Coroner for County Durham and Darlington

A Record of Inquest may be amended by the High Court on judicial review where the existing wording does not accurately reflect the coroner’s evidence-based findings and intended conclusion. The remedy is appropriate where amendment corrects an omission or error in distilling those findings into the record. Where the parties agree an amendment and provide the required procedural statement, the court must review the documents and make the order only if satisfied that it should be made.

The claimants, the parents of a deceased woman, challenged wording in the Record of Inquest concerning the cause of her low mood before her suicide. The coroner had made findings that her previous relationship was turbulent and abusive, but the record referred only to the ending of a relationship and pressures from work and study. The coroner accepted that he had omitted the emotionally abusive feature when preparing the record. The parties agreed that the wording should be amended by consent. The issue was whether the High Court should approve the agreed order, the coroner being functus officio.

1. Claim succeeded. The claim for judicial review succeeded on ground 1. Ground 2 was not pursued because the court approved the agreed consent order.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, PD 54A, paragraphs 16.1 and 16.2, where an agreed order is proposed the court must review the documentation and make the order only if satisfied that it should be made.
3. The court was satisfied that the Record of Inquest required amendment. The revised wording accurately reflected evidence and findings which the coroner had made, intended to make and was justified in making. Those findings included that the earlier relationship was abusive, that abusive messages continued shortly before the death, and that the relationship contributed to the deceased’s mental state.
4. Because the coroner was functus officio, significant amendment of the Record of Inquest required an order of the High Court by way of judicial review. Revising the record in the agreed terms was an appropriate remedy. The court relied on R (Mowlem plc) v Avon Deputy Assistant Coroner and Ministry of Defence v HM Coroner for Wiltshire & Swindon as examples of that remedy.
5. The wording in box 3 was ordered to be amended by deleting the reference to the ending of a relationship and work and study pressures and substituting “an emotionally abusive relationship”.