His Majesty's Senior Coroner for Northamptonshire v Nick and Diana Lovell & Anor

Under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, a fresh inquest may be ordered where new evidence makes this necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. A different verdict need not be anticipated. However, a fresh inquest is not necessary where the new evidence affects only a narrow part of the record and the substantial truth of the death remains clear. In deciding desirability, the deceased’s family views are material. The court may also consider the risk of distress, delay and inconsistent findings. A fresh inquest was refused where the public record could be understood accurately from the existing record, the related inquest and the judgment.

Annabelle Lovell died as a passenger in a car involved in a fatal collision. Her inquest recorded that the driver had a significant amount of alcohol in his blood and cannabis. At a later inquest into the driver’s death, further toxicological evidence showed that it was impossible to determine how much alcohol or cannabis had been present at death or whether his driving had been affected.

The Senior Coroner applied, with the Attorney General’s fiat, under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash the record of inquest and obtain a fresh investigation and inquest. The central issue was whether the new evidence made a further inquest necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.

1. Application dismissed. The court was not satisfied that a fresh investigation and inquest was necessary or desirable in the interests of justice.
2. Under section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988, the court applies the approach stated in HM Attorney General v HM Coroner of South Yorkshire (West) and another [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin). Significant fresh evidence will normally support a further inquest where it may reasonably show that the substantial truth about how the deceased died was not revealed. A different conclusion need not be likely. Even evidence confirming the original verdict may justify a fresh inquest where public disclosure of the full evidence makes that desirable.
3. Here, the new toxicological evidence affected only one part of one sentence in the narrative conclusion. The sentence did not state that the driver’s ability was impaired. It could be removed or understood as referring to alcohol detected at post-mortem testing. The substantial truth about the collision and death remained clear. A fresh investigation was therefore not necessary.
4. The record of inquest did not name the driver. Section 10 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 prevents a determination from appearing to determine the criminal or civil liability of a named person. The record in the driver’s case and this judgment, read together, sufficiently corrected any necessary public understanding.
5. In assessing desirability, the deceased’s family views were a material consideration, as illustrated by HM Senior Coroner for Gwent re the Inquest into the Death of Vaughan [2020] EWHC 36703 (Admin). The Lovell family opposed reopening the inquest. The distress and delay involved, together with the risk of inconsistent findings concerning the same collision, weighed against a fresh investigation.