Inquests: Directions To The Jury

R (on the application of D) v Inner South London Assistant

Deputy Coroner [2008] EWHC 3356 (Admin) Date of judgment: 3

December 2008

Article by Anand Doobay, Partner and Jo Dimmock,

Associate in the Fraud and Regulatory Department, Peters &

Peters Solicitors

Background

The claimant was the mother of John Charles de Menezes ("Mr

de Menezes") who was shot and killed by police firearms

officers. At an inquest into the death, the coroner ruled that a

potential verdict of unlawful killing could not be left to the

jury. This left the jury with only two available verdicts;

an open verdict and;

lawful killing.

The coroner additionally gave the jury a questionnaire with a

series of questions to indicate which of the factors set out

contributed to the death of Mr de Menezes. The jury could only

answer in the boxes labelled "Yes", "No" or

"Cannot Decide". The coroner refused an application by

the claimant's representatives who proposed that certain

additional questions should be put to the jury. The claimant

contended that the jury should additionally have been asked whether

they had identified any other factors which they considered had

more than a minimal causal contribution to the death of Mr de

Menezes, if so what they were and whether they had any additional

comments to make including clarifying their conclusions on any

particular factor or expressing their view on the gravity of any

failing found.

The claimant challenged the decision by way of judicial review

and contended that without the additional questions the jury would

be unduly limited in their ability to return their conclusions as

to how Mr de Menezes died.

Issues before the Court

The issue for the Court was whether the inquest, in light of the

questions which the coroner agreed could be put to the jury,

satisfied the obligation under Article 2 of European Convention on

Human Rights to carry out a properly conducted official

investigation into Mr de Menezes' death.

Decision

The High Court held that six factors individually and

cumulatively led to the conclusion that the claimant's

application should be dismissed.

First, the verdicts left for the jury and the questions put to

them satisfied the requirements in s.11(5)(b)(ii) of the

Coroners Act 1988 and Rule 36(1)(b) of the Coroner

Rules 1984, SI 1984/552, by enabling the jury to ascertain

'by what means and in what circumstances' Mr de Menezes met

his death. Further, the verdict in the present case would provide

more information than...