Gary Parkin, R (on the application of) v His Majesty’s Assistant Coroner for Inner London (East)

For an Article 2 investigative duty to arise, it must be credible, on the available evidence, that a public authority owed and arguably breached an Article 2 operational duty. A real and immediate risk of death is necessary but insufficient. The court must also consider matters including state responsibility or control, the victim’s relevant vulnerability, and whether the risk was exceptional rather than an ordinary risk of life. Properly autonomous choices involving self-neglect or self-harm remain entitled to respect. Any operational duty is measured by reasonableness, including the authorities’ resources, the practicability of precautions and the deceased’s autonomy.

Mrs Rosslyn Wolff died in a house fire. Her son, Gary Parkin, sought judicial review of the Assistant Coroner’s refusal to direct that the inquest investigate the wider circumstances of her death under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claim concerned whether the evidence made it arguable that the relevant health, social care and fire authorities owed and breached an Article 2 operational duty to protect Mrs Wolff’s life. The inquest remained adjourned pending determination of that issue.

1. Claim dismissed. The Assistant Coroner’s decision stood because the necessity test in section 5(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 was not satisfied.
2. The threshold requirement of a real and immediate risk to life was met. The evidence objectively established a present and continuing risk of a house fire, arising from the combination of indoor smoking, combustible hoarding, diabetes-related confusion or debility and resistance to intervention. A house-fire risk inherently included a risk of death, not merely harm.
3. That threshold was necessary but insufficient to establish an Article 2 operational duty. Mrs Wolff was a competent adult living independently in her own home. The authorities lacked any legal power to detain or control her, and she resisted intervention. A welfare plan aimed at mitigating risks did not, without more, amount to an assumption of state responsibility.
4. The indicia identified in Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust were not exhaustive. However, the authorities did not justify extending the operational duty to properly autonomous risk-taking and self-neglect where the relevant risks remained under the individual’s control. The risk of a fatal domestic fire, although heightened, was an ordinary risk which individuals could generally be expected to manage rather than an exceptional risk requiring state protection.
5. Alternatively, even if an operational duty arose, its scope was limited by reasonableness and respect for autonomy. The proposed intervention was modest, dependent on consent and formed against a long history of unsuccessful engagement. The evidence did not make it credible that quicker implementation in the final month would have made a material difference. No arguable breach was therefore shown.
6. A traditional inquest, a prevention of future deaths report or a finding of neglect could still address possible shortcomings. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

First-instance judicial review of the Assistant Coroner’s ruling dated 1 September 2022. The High Court dismissed the claim and upheld the refusal to direct an Article 2 inquest.