R (Leeson) v Coroner for Manchester South |
1 |
Issue: Whether the Coroner, who would be considering inquest conclusions of accidental death or unlawful killing, was irrational to exclude from the scope of the inquest evidence relevant to a motive or reason for killing the deceased. |
|
|
|
R (Makki) v Senior Coroner for South Manchester |
6 |
Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Coroner to refuse to reach a conclusion of either lawful killing or unlawful killing, on the grounds of insufficient evidence. |
|
|
|
R (Police Officer B50) v Assistant Coroner for the East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull |
12 |
Issue: Whether the Coroner had adopted the correct approach to the ‘Galbraith Plus test’ and ‘safety’ for leaving the conclusion of unlawful killing. |
|
|
|
Dove v (1) HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool (2) Dr Rahman |
34 |
Issue: Whether a fresh inquest was necessary or desirable where there was new expert evidence that the abrupt cessation of DWP benefits potentially effected the deceased’s mental health; whether that fresh evidence revealed an arguable breach of Art 2 ECHR. |
|
|
|
Abbasi and Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Thomas |
49 |
Issue: Whether to vary or discharge indefinite reporting restrictions orders made in two end-of-life medical treatment cases. |
|
|
|
R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde |
68 |
Issue: Whether a care home owed duties under Art 2 ECHR to a resident who was deprived of her liberty and subject to a standard authorisation under Mental Capacity Act 2005. |
|
|
|
Cummings’ Application for Leave to Bring Judicial Review |
106 |
Issue: Whether the coroner, exercising his discretion, was entitled to refuse to designate the survivor of the gun attack in which the deceased died, as a properly interested person at the subsequent inquest. |
|
|
|
Cummings v The Coroner in the Inquest into the Death of Seamus Dillon (deceased) |
114 |
Issue: Whether the coroner, exercising his discretion, was entitled to refuse to designate the survivor of the gun attack in which the deceased died, as a properly interested person at the subsequent inquest. |
|
|
|
R (Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service) v HM Acting Senior Coroner for Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire |
124 |
Issue: Whether the requirement that a coroner should proceed fairly meant the Claimant should be permitted to challenge the conclusions of an investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. |
|
|
|
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey and others |
149 |
Issue: Whether a declaration should be made that a person was dead, given an irreversible absence of brain stem function; whether consequential declarations that it would be lawful to withdraw ventilatory support should be made. |
|
|
|
(1) Ben Leeson (2) William Leeson v Donald McPherson |
163 |
Issue: Whether a document recording facts agreed between the parties to civil proceedings that were yet to reach trial, should be made available to a coroner for the purpose of an inquest. |
|
|
|
Dalton’s Application |
174 |
Issue: Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 imposed a procedural obligation to investigate deaths which occurred more than 12 years before the Act came into force on 2 October 2000. |
|
|
|
Gargan & Butler’s Application for Judicial Review |
232 |
Issue: Whether the coroner’s decision that the criminal records of civilian eyewitnesses could be disclosed was reviewable on the grounds that it would hamper the statutory function of the inquest, and/or was disproportionate. |
|
|
|
Otitoju v Onwordi; Adesanya v Otitoju |
237 |
Issue: Whether the executor of a will had the right to take control of the deceased’s body and arrange his funeral where the validity of that will was being disputed. |
|
|
|
Friel’s Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review |
243 |
Issue: Whether a coroner had (i) failed to take into account relevant evidence, (ii) made findings of fact unsupported by evidence, (iii) unreasonably exercised his discretion, and/or (iv) unlawfully restricted questioning of a witness entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination, therefore requiring a fresh inquest to be held. |
|
|
|