The deceased died in Dartmoor prison. He had been held in seclusion. When visited he was said to have attacked the guards. He was restrained until a body belt could be brought. The period of restraint exceeded the maximum recommended, and the deceased suffered a condition (unknown to him or the officers) which made it particularly risky for him. He died later. The family made a renewed application for leave to bring judicial review of a decision of the coroner not to leave a verdict of unlawful killing to the jury.
Held: As to the applicaion of Wedenesbury in Coroners cases: ‘there are different tests inherent in the Wednesbury approach. The first is whether there is a mistake of law. If the deciding body has made a mistake of law, then the courts can intervene to correct that mistake. Secondly, they can intervene if the body making the decision has failed to take into account a consideration which they are required to take into account, or has taken into account a consideration which they are not entitled to take into account. Thirdly, applying the test to a Coroner, the courts can do so where a Coroner has acted in such a way which no reasonable Coroner would act, having properly directed himself as to the law. ‘ The difficulty, as here, was where there was some evidence. In such a case where the matter is borderline, it is for the Coroner to exercise a discretion. For any allegation of manslaughter, a causal connection had to be established between the unlawful act and the death. Here the doctor’s evidence could properly be read to exclude that connection: ‘The Galbraith decision makes it clear that this is one of the cases where it would be unsafe to leave unlawful killing to the jury. ‘ The application was refused.
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2951
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Explained – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners
Updated: 13 November 2022; Ref: scu.143350