header-logo header-logo

Coroner

02 December 2016
Issue: 7725 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Surrey [2016] EWHC 3001 (Admin), [2016] All ER (D) 144 (Nov)

The Administrative Court granted an application permitting non-disclosure of documents on the ground that disclosure would damage the public interest. In granting the application, the court held that it had jurisdiction to consider an application for public interest immunity, and that it was appropriate to exercise it, in a case where the defendant coroner had asked for disclosure of sensitive material, and the secretary of state had refused to disclose that material because disclosure could have damaged national security.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Kingsley Napley—Tristan Cox-Chung

Firm bolsters restructuring and insolvency team with partner hire

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Foot Anstey—Stephen Arnold

Firm appoints first chief client officer

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

Mewburn Ellis—Aled Richards-Jones

IP firm welcomes experienced patent litigator as partner

NEWS
Solicitors are installing panic buttons and thumb print scanners due to ‘systemic and rising’ intimidation including death and arson threats from clients
Ministers’ decision to scrap plans for their Labour manifesto pledge of day one protection from unfair dismissal was entirely predictable, employment lawyers have said
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll