Unlawful Killing Following Maughan ' New Guidance Issued By The Chief Coroner

• Published date: 25 January 2021
• Subject Matter: Criminal Law, Crime
• Law Firm: BCL Solicitors LLP
• Author: Mr Richard Reichman

Overview

In the case of R (on the application of Maughan) (Appellant) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire (Respondent) [2020] UKSC 46, the Supreme Court found, by a majority of three to two, that all conclusions in coronial inquests, including unlawful killing and suicide, whether short form or narrative, are to be determined on the civil standard of proof i.e. 'on the balance of probabilities'.

A striking effect of the judgment is that for an inquest conclusion of unlawful killing a lower burden of proof is now sufficient (previously the burden of proof applied was the criminal burden of proof i.e. 'beyond reasonable doubt'). This is a departure from the applicable burden of proof in any related criminal proceedings (for example, for the serious crimes of murder and manslaughter). The Supreme Court placed an emphasis on consistency between inquest conclusions, arguably giving insufficient consideration and weight to significant issues relating to unlawful killing.

Following the judicial dust settling, the Chief Coroner recently issued 'Law Sheet Number 6', to be applied by coroners dealing with unlawful killing issues in the future. The Chief Coroner anticipates that unlawful killing is likely to be relevant in "relatively few" inquests. However, the relatively low number of historic unlawful killing conclusions cited were constrained by the previous higher burden of proof and this opinion may be optimistic. In addition, inquests which do involve consideration of unlawful killing, for example arising from workplace fatalities, medical negligence cases and deaths in custody, will be substantially affected by the Maughan judgment.

The Nature of Inquests

The scope of coronial proceedings has developed over time since the office of the coroner was established eight centuries ago in 1164, primarily as a revenue driven initiative.

Coroners today are responsible for investigating violent and unnatural deaths, or where the cause of death is unknown, or the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention. The coroner's investigation is to establish who died, and how, when, and where they died. These are important questions for understanding the occurrence of deaths and implementing measures to prevent future deaths, but the answers need to be distinguished from the attribution of criminal liability on the part of a named person or civil liability; a coroner (or a jury) is expressly prohibited from framing a determination at the conclusion of an inquest as to appear to determine these issues.

An inquest is an inquisitorial fact-finding hearing, involving 'interested persons' rather than 'parties'. It is not intended to be an adversarial process - the proceedings involve no...