Inquests

Originally published June 2004

The House of Lords has recently reviewed the requirements of verdicts in inquests in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998, (HRA) in the case of R (on the application of Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004]. Article 2 of the HRA protects the right to life and imposes on the state substantive obligations to establish a framework of laws, precautions, procedures and means of enforcement which would, to the greatest extent reasonably practical, protect life.

The obligation for the state to ensure a properly independent investigation is carried out where any of the substantive obligations may have been violated is also imposed by Article 2. The House of Lords considered whether the existing procedures to return verdicts under the jurisdiction of the Coroner's Court provided sufficient investigation of a death involving or possibly involving a violation of Article 2.

The background to the case was the death of Mr Middleton who had killed himself while serving a prison sentence. In the inquest into his death the jury delivered a verdict of suicide but were not allowed, due to restrictions imposed by the Coroners Rules, to add publicly that failings in the system had contributed to his death. The deceased's wife had sought an order that the jury's findings be publicly recorded.

Lord Bingham, delivering the court's judgment, expressed the view that a verdict of an inquest jury which did not express the jury's conclusion on a major issue canvassed in the evidence given at the inquest could not meet the expectations of the deceased's family or next of kin who themselves had legitimate interests in the investigation into the death. The court indicated that "an 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".

The Coroners Rules require juries to set out in writing who the deceased was and how, when and where he came by his death, but do not allow the jury to express an opinion on any other matter. The court held that a broad interpretation of "how" the deceased came to his death accorded with the HRA and in order to comply with the requirements of Article 2, juries should now determine "in what circumstances" the deceased had died as well as "by what means". This opens the doors for juries to express a view on disputed factual issues raised in the inquest.

Conclusions

Juries can now return narrative...