Copyright Notice, Limited Permissions, and Disclaimers
R
(Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner and
R
(Sacker) v West Yorkshire Coroner
in the House of Lords
The oral arguments in these two appeals were heard together over three days from Monday 2 to Wednesday 4 February 2004. The appeal committee consisted of Lord Bingham, Lord Hope, Lord Walker, Baroness Hale (appointed 12 January 2004) and Lord Carswell (also appointed 12 January 2004).
In the first case the appellant was the Home Secretary (represented by Jonathan Crow and Rabinder Singh QC), and the respondents were the coroner (represented by Hugh Mercer and Richard Easton) and Jean Middleton (represented by Ben Emmerson, Pete Weatherby and Danny Friedman). (The Court of Appeal's decision in this case is available here.)
In addition, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, INQUEST and the Coroners' Society of England and Wales made written interventions.
In the second case the appellant was the coroner (represented by Ian Burnett QC and James Findlay) and the respondent was Helen Sacker (represented by Richard Gordon QC and Stephen Cragg). (The Court of Appeal's decision in this case is available here.)
On Thursday 11 March 2004, the House of Lords delivered judgment in both cases (and also in the Northern Irish case of Re McKerr).
In Middleton the House allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the Court of Appeal's declaration, since it would serve no useful purpose. But it made a number of important statements on the law in the light of the HRA, including:
(1) an Art 2 inquest ought ordinarily to culminate in an expression, however brief, of the jury's conclusion on the disputed factual issues at the heart of the case; but this can be done in different ways (at the discretion of the coroner), such as an expanded form of conclusion as to death, a narrative verdict, or by inviting answers to specific questions;
(2) there are some cases where the current inquest regime does not meet Art 2 criteria, and the single change that needs to be made (in accordance with s 3 of the HRA 1998) is to construe "how" in s 11 of the 1988 Act and r 36 of the 1984 rules as meaning not just "by what means" but also "in what circumstances";
(3) the prohibitions in rules 36(2) and 42 must continue to be respected;
(4) neglect and self-neglect continue to be terms of art, and there is no need to alter their meaning; moreover there is force in the criticism of the distinction drawn between individual and systemic neglect;
(5) where, in an Art 2 case, the coroner intends to make a report under r 43, he should publicly announce, in neutral way, the substance of the report he intends to make.
In the Sacker case, the House dismissed the coroner's appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. The coroner could not be criticised for following the guidance in Jamieson. However, in view of the decision in Middleton to construe the question of "how" in a broader way, it was right to order a new inquest, at which the coroner would be able to invite the jury to consider the issues.in the way indicated in Middleton.
| Accessibility | Contact | Feedback | Search | Terms of use |
Last modified: Monday, 09-Aug-2004 08:53:14 BST by: Malcolm Bishop