Newsletter

2023

Cases Reported

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.
 
View as
Sort by
Display per page