The death occurred whilst diving some eight or nine miles offshore. The applicant, the deceased’s father challenged the coroner’s decision to refuse jurisdiction for an inquest.
Held: The body was not, in the terms of the 1926 Act, ‘in or near the area within which he had jurisdiction’.
Held: The wording used ordinary words of the English language, and its interpretation was within the coroner’s discretion. The distance was such as to make the coroner’s decision proper.
Citations:
[1988] 1 WLR 1194, [1989] 1 All ER 30, (1989) 153 JP 1, (1988) 152 JPN 771, (1988) 132 SJ 1216
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Considered – Guardians of the Society of Keelman on the River Tyne v Davison 1864
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Coroner for Southern District of Greater London, ex Parte Driscoll Admn 22-Oct-1993
The applicant, a sister of the deceased, requested a judicial review of the decision of the coroner not to allow her to be represented and to cross examine witnesses.
Held: One of the coroner’s letters had been offensive and misleading. A . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.229165
