HM Senior Coroner for the County of the East Riding of Yorkshire and the City of Hull v HM Assistant Coroner for the County of the East Riding of Yorkshire and the City of Hull

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, the court may order a fresh inquest where new facts or evidence make a further investigation necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. A different conclusion need not be probable, or even anticipated, although the possibility of a different conclusion is relevant. The discovery and identification of previously missing human remains may justify a fresh inquest, even where the original inquest was properly conducted and the passage of time generally weighs against reopening it. An open conclusion remains a conclusion of last resort and should be used only where the evidence does not support a fuller conclusion.

Michael Conboy disappeared in April 2009. An inquest in February 2019, conducted when no body had been found, recorded that he probably died on the date of his disappearance and returned an open conclusion.

In December 2022, skeletal remains were discovered and were subsequently identified through DNA analysis as Mr Conboy’s remains. The Senior Coroner applied under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 for the 2019 inquest to be quashed and a fresh inquest to be held. There was no allegation of procedural irregularity or criticism of the original Assistant Coroner. The central issue was whether the new facts and evidence made a fresh inquest necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. The application was granted. The 2019 inquest was quashed and a fresh inquest was ordered, with no order for costs.

2. Section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 applies where, by reason of new facts or evidence, it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for another investigation to be held. The court applied the considerations identified in R(Sutovic) v Northern District of Greater London Coroner [2006] EWHC 1095 (Admin), including the possibility of a different conclusion, shortcomings in the original inquest, the need to investigate new evidence, and the lapse of time.

3. The court adopted the guidance in HM Attorney-General v HM Coroner of South Yorkshire; HM Coroner of West Yorkshire [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin): fresh evidence which may reveal that the substantial truth about the death was not disclosed at the first inquest will normally make a further inquest necessary or desirable. It is not a precondition that a different verdict be expected.

4. The discovery and conclusive identification of Mr Conboy’s remains constituted significant new evidence requiring investigation. The evidence could enable findings about the circumstances of death to be recorded more fully than was possible in 2019. The absence of any fault in the original inquest did not prevent an order under section 13.

5. An open conclusion is discouraged except where strictly necessary, as explained in R(Howlett) v HM Coroner for the County of Devon [2006] EWHC 2570 (Admin). The five-year delay was not decisive because the body had remained undiscovered and the new evidence had only subsequently become available.

6. The procedural requirements in Practice Direction 49E had initially not been met because the family had not been served. The court adjourned, extended time for service, and proceeded after confirmation that service had occurred and no objection had been raised.

This was an application to the Divisional Court under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The court quashed the earlier inquest and ordered a fresh inquest.