The court gave its reasons for an earlier refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of a coroner’s decision refusing permission to require the attendance of his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, and to ask questions of the Queen in the course of the inquest into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Whilst it was not suggested that they had had any direct involvement the applicant wished to enquire to see whether there was encouraged an atmosphere in which actions against Diana may have occurred.
Held: The Coroner’s approach was neither illogical nor unreasonable, and his conclusion was not flawed. He was required to make a judgment based on whether it was expedient in the particular context of the facts and issues relevant to these inquests. In that context he was entitled to have regard to the vast amount of evidence which had been called and the very limited evidence which remained to be called. As he put it: ‘in keeping open the question whether it might be expedient to call the Duke of Edinburgh I was anxious to see what evidence emerged during the inquests that might alter my initial view. Looking at the whole of the evidence and keeping firmly in mind that it is for the jury and not me to decide what evidence is to be accepted or rejected, nothing has emerged to persuade me it will be expedient to call the Duke of Edinburgh . . Inquiries of Her Majesty The Queen should not be made as suggested by Mr Al Fayed on the basis that they will not assist the jury to answer the statutory questions.’
Judges:
Sir Igor Judge P QBD, Gross, Walker JJ
Citations:
[2008] EWHC 713 (Admin)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Coroners
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266891