The verdict of ‘lack of care’ at an inquest is to be used to indicate only the condition of the deceased at the time of death as a cause of death, and is not to be used as a way of attributing fault. The admission of documentary evidence by a coroner is controlled by Rule 37 and that the use of and reference to documents is narrowly circumscribed. In this case the issue of ‘lack of care’ should have been investigated and left to the jury.
Judges:
Croom Johnson LJ
Citations:
[1987] 1 WLR 1624, [1987] 2 All ER 140
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London v Paul and Another, Regina on the Application of CA 28-Nov-2007
The coroner appealed a judicial review granted after he allowed into evidence, hearsay evidence contained in a written statemnent from a witness who could not attend the inquest.
Held: Rule 37 does not allow the admission of a document, even . .
Cited – Hurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners
Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.237541