The court heard an application for judicial review of the Coroner’s verdict, on the grounds of procedural irregularity and insufficiency of enquiry. The claimant also sought a new review in the light of more recently received evidence.
Held: The first claim failed. As to the second, Moses LJ said: ‘Whilst, on the state of the evidence at present, any other verdict than an open verdict may seem unlikely, we are persuaded that in the light of the evidence which has emerged since the coroner’s verdict a fresh inquest should be ordered . .
In the present case in the inquest verdict the coroner did record some circumstances . . and in particular that there was no evidence as to the exact circumstances surrounding the death. But it appears that there is evidence of at least some of the circumstances surrounding the death. Those circumstances have never been fully investigated and indeed could not be investigated since that evidence had not yet emerged, at the time of the verdict on 27 September 2004. The evidence includes the report of the Serbian Ministry of Interior Affairs dated 11 April 2005, the reports of doctors Milosavljevic and Gavalas as to the appearance of the deceased and to the presence of blood at the scene.
If, after examination of the circumstances at a fresh inquest, it emerges that the deceased had been treated with violence at the time of his death, even if that only leads to another open verdict, that seems to us to be a conclusion very different from that which already had been reached . . The evidence which has now emerged may cast a very different light upon the circumstances of Petar Sutovic’s death. In those circumstances we would allow the application under Section 13 and order a fresh inquest before a different coroner.
We should emphasise that our conclusion is based on a very small amount of the material before us and despite the over abundance of argument, evidence and experts’ reports. It will be for the coroner conducting a full and fair fresh inquest to sift that which is of use and that which is without foundation. The claimant’s grief deprived her of the ability to do so in prosecuting either the judicial review proceedings or the claim under Section 13 of the 1988 Act. Many of her concerns are not legitimate and have been fuelled by experts reports, some of which we consider are flawed for the reasons we have set out, in particular the apparent non disclosure to those instructed by or on behalf of the claimant of the Serbian Ministry of Interior Affairs’ report demonstrating the inadequacies of the original investigation and the fact that the scene of the death was not sealed. Notwithstanding this, it seems to us that the public interest requires that should be done, if only to allay the fears and suspicions which have already, possibly unnecessarily been aroused’.
Moses LJ considered the aplication of section 13, saying: ‘The power contained in section 13(1)(b) is stated in very broad terms. The necessity or desirability of another inquest may arise by reasons of one of the listed matters or ‘otherwise’. Notwithstanding the width of the statutory words, its exercise by the courts shows that the factors of central importance are an assessment of the possibility (as opposed to the probability) of a different verdict, the shortcomings in the original inquest, and the need to investigate matters raised by new evidence which had not been investigated at the inquest: see Re Rapier [1988] 1 QB 26, 34-35, 37H-38A, 39 per Woolf LJ and Simon Brown J; R v HM Coroner, Lincoln, ex p Hay. 19 February 1987; R v HM Coroner, Coventry, ex p O’Reilly. Times Law Reports, 3 April 1996; and R v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Northern District of London, ex p Bloom [2004] EWHC 3071 (Admin) . . ‘
Moses LJ, Beatson J
[2006] EWHC 1095 (Admin)
Bailii
Coroners Act 1988 13
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v HM Coroner, Lincoln, ex parte Hay 19-Feb-1987
. .
Cited – In re Rapier (Deceased) QBD 1988
A young prisoner had been found dead in his cell hanging. A report suggested that he may have been sniffing solvents. The coroner himself initiated proceedings both under the Coroners’ Act and for judicial review to quash the inquisition over which . .
Cited by:
See Also – HM Coroner for the Eastern District of London, Regina (On the Application of) v Sutovic Admn 31-Jul-2009
The deceased had died in Serbia, but was buried in Acton. A second inquest had been ordered on the request of the respondent, and an exhumation licence granted for the purposes of a second post mortem examination. The respondent had refused her . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.241780