The deceased prisoner had hanged himself. He had been a known suicide risk, and his brother said that the authorities being so aware, the death resulted from their lack of care. The inquest heard in full the circumstannces leading up to the death, but the Coroner directed the jury not to return a verdict which included any reference to lack of care.
Held: A finding of neglect is rarely consistent with a suicide, or one where the deceased contributed to his own death. It would be wrong to allow the jury to attribute blame.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘Despite the rulings given by the appellate courts, problems continue to arise both for coroners seeking to conduct inquests and direct juries in accordance with the law as they understand it and for those interested in the death of a deceased person seeking to explore the full circumstances of the death and draw lessons which may prevent repetition. Coroners do their utmost to confine the proceedings before them within the bounds of what they consider to be proper. Interested parties not infrequently strain to pursue their quarry well beyond the boundaries set by the coroner.’ and ‘General Conclusions. An inquest is a fact finding inquiry conducted by a coroner, with or without a jury, to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions. The first of these relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of his death, the third to the time of death. In most cases these questions are not hard to answer but in a minority of cases the answer may be problematical. The fourth question, and that to which evidence and inquiry are most often and most closely directed, relates to how the deceased came by his death. Rule 36 requires that the proceedings and evidence shall be directed solely to ascertaining these matters and forbid any expression of opinion on any other matter.
Both in section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1988 and in rule 36(1)(b) of the Rules of 1984, ‘how’ is to be understood as meaning ‘by what means.’ It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died, which might reach general and far-reaching issues, but ‘how the deceased came by his death,’ a more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death. It is the duty of the coroner as the public official responsible for the conduct of inquests, whether he is sitting with a jury or without, to ensure that the relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated. He is bound to recognise the acute public concern rightly aroused where deaths occur in custody. He must ensure that the relevant facts are exposed to public scrutiny, particularly if there is evidence of foul play, abuse or inhumanity. He fails in his duty if his investigation is superficial, slipshod or perfunctory. But the responsibility is his. He must set the bounds of the inquiry. He must rule on the procedure to be followed. His decisions, like those of any other judicial officer, must be respected unless and until they are varied or overruled.’
‘It is not the function of a coroner or his jury to determine or appear to determine, any question of criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame . . the prohibition on returning a verdict so as to appear to determine any question of civil liability is unqualified, applying whether anyone is named or not. Much of the difficulty to which verdicts of lack of care have given rise appear to be due to an almost inevitable confusion between this expression and the lack of care which is the foundation for a successful claim in common law negligence. Since many of those seeking that verdict do so as a stepping-stone towards such a claim the boundary is bound to become blurred. But lack of care in the context of an inquest has been correctly described as the obverse of self-neglect. It is to be hoped that in future the expression ‘lack of care’ may for practical purposes be deleted from the lexicon of inquests and replaced by ‘neglect’. Neglect in this context means a gross failure to provide adequate nourishment or liquid, or provide basic medical attention or shelter or warmth for someone in a dependent position (because of youth, age, illness or incarceration) who cannot provide it for himself. Failure to provide medical attention for a dependent person whose physical condition is such as to show he obviously needs it may amount to neglect . . Neglect can rarely, if ever, be an appropriate verdict on its own . . Neglect may contribute to a death from natural causes. Neither neglect nor self-neglect should ever form any part of any verdict unless a clear and direct causal connection is established between the conduct so described and the cause of death.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Times 28-Apr-1994, Independent 27-Apr-1994, [1995] QB 1, [1994] 3 All ER 972, [1994] 3 WLR 82, (1994) 158 JP 1011;, (1994) 19 BMLR 35
Coroners Act 1988 11(5)(b)(ii), Coroners Rules 1984 36(1) 40
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v North Humberside and Scunthorpe Coroner ex parte Jamieson QBD 12-Jul-1993
northhumberside_jamiesonCA1993
A prisoner had hanged himself after being left unsupervised in a single cell. He was a known suicide risk, but the Coroner directed the jury not to return a verdict which included any reference to lack of care.
Held: A coroner was free not to . .
Cited – Regina v Coroner for Surrey, ex parte Wright 18-Jun-1966
The deceased died when unconscious under general anaesthetic in the course of dental surgery, as a result of an obstruction to his airway.
Held: There was no basis in such circumstances for contending that the verdict of accident should have . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Regina (Middleton) v Coroner for West Somersetshire CA 27-Mar-2002
A prisoner had been killed in his cell by a cell-mate known to be unstable and racist. His family sought to be involved in the inquiry into the death within the prison system. A second prisoner hanged himself in his cell. His family alleged that he . .
Cited – Khan, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Coroner for West Hertfordshire and Another Admn 7-Mar-2002
The deceased died in police custody. The coroner refused to leave to the jury possible verdicts of unlawful killing, or death contributed to by neglect, or breach of his right to life. He adjourned the hearing to allow this challenge.
Held: . .
Cited – Regina on the Application of Mullholland v HM Coroner for St Pancras QBD 7-Nov-2003
The applicant sought to re-open a coroner’s inquest. The deceased had been drunk, slipped banged his head and fallen to the ground. Police and ambulance were called. The ambulance worker was not told he had been unconscious, and he was taken to the . .
Cited – In the Matter of Captain Christopher John Kelly Admn 14-Jun-1996
The deceased was killed by ‘friendly fire’ during a night exercise in Kenya. A verdict of accidental death was returned, and a fresh inquest was sought particularly in the light of a statement from a fellow officer.
Held: The emergence of . .
Cited – Sacker, Regina (on the Application of) v Coroner for the County of West Yorkshire HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased committed suicide in prison. Her family sought to have added to the verdict the words ‘contributed by neglect’ and complained that the inquest had not provided a full and proper investigation of the death.
Held: The Act needed to . .
Cited – In Re Neal (Coroner: Jury) QBD 17-Nov-1995
The father of the deceased sought to have the coroner quash the inquest. His daughter had died in Spain from carbon monoxide poisoning, apparently emanated from a faulty water heater in the apartment in which she had stayed. Her body had been . .
Cited – In re Catherine Lucy Clegg (an Application to Quash Inquisition on Inquest) Admn 2-Dec-1996
The father of the deceased sought an order quashing the inquest on her death. He had recorded a verdict of suicide. She had died from acute salicylate poisoning, an aspirin overdose. The hospital was said not to have recognised her condition and not . .
Cited – Bloom v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for the Northern District of London and Another Admn 20-Dec-2004
The deceased had gone to hospital and was diagnosed as having a kidney stone. As it was removed there was evidence of infection. She declined and was transferred to the local NHS hospital in intensive care. She died and a post-mortem identified . .
Cited – LM, Re (Reporting Restrictions; Coroner’s Inquest) FD 1-Aug-2007
A child had died. In earlier civil proceedings, the court had laid responsibility with the mother. Restrictions had been placed on the information which would effectively prevent the coroner conducting his inquest. The coroner sought a lifting of . .
Cited – O’Connor, Regina (On the Application of) v HM Coroner for District of Avon and Another Admn 7-May-2009
Two children died when their father jumped with them from a hotel balcony. The father had been acquitted in Crete of manslaughter after evidence of his psychiatric condition. The applicant now challenged the English coroner’s verdict of unlawful . .
Cited – P, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The District of Avon CA 18-Dec-2009
The deceased was found hanging in her prison cell. The jury returned a verdict of accidental death, not being satisfied that she was not merely making a cry for help. The family appealed a finding that the inquest had satisfied the requirement for a . .
Cited – Jones v HM Coroner for The Southern District of Greater London and Another Admn 28-Apr-2010
The mother of the deceased asked for a new inquest, saying that there had been insufficient enquiry. He was an adult suffering Asperger’s syndrome and other difficulties, but had sought and been given excess prescriptions of fentanyl a drug to . .
Cited – Smith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
Cited – Wilkinson, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The Greater Manchester South District Admn 11-Oct-2012
The court was asked whether evidence of the commission of the criminal offence of causing death by careless driving contrary to section 2B of the 1988 Act is capable of justifying a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’ at an inquest.
Held: The . .
Cited – Kent County Council, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The County of Kent (North-West District) and Others Admn 15-Oct-2012
The council sought review of the coroner’s decision that the inquest would be an article 2 inquest and with a jury. The deceased was 14 years old and had taken methadone. In the months before his death, he had had involvement with the council’s . .
Cited – Sreedharan, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Coroner for The County of Greater Manchester Admn 28-May-2012
The claimant doctor renewed his application for judicial review of the jury verdict of unlawful killing at the inquest into a patient. The patientwas alcoholic. The doctor prescribed a sedative drug for him, but it was known to be potentially lethal . .
Cited – Tyrrell v HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Another Admn 26-Jul-2016
The court was aked what article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights requires of a coroner when a serving prisoner dies of natural causes.
Held: The reuest for judicial review failed. Mr Tyrrell’s death was, from the outset, one which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners, Health Professions, Prisons
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.87444
