header-logo header-logo

July 7 inquest

02 December 2010
Issue: 7444 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Home Secretary, Theresa May’s application to have a closed hearing for sensitive evidence at the July 7 inquest failed because it would have meant a jury hearing evidence that the family could not.

Handing down its judgment this week, the High Court said the central question was whether rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 empowers the coroner to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives from part of an inquest and to receive and later take into account closed material received in their absence.

Mr Justice Maurice Kay said: “Rule 17 applies equally to inquests where there is or there is not a jury. 

This raises the obvious question of how a closed procedure could possibly operate with a randomly-selected jury. 

It cannot have been contemplated that a properly interested person and his legal representative would be excluded while a jury sees and hears closed material.”
 

Issue: 7444 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Fox & Partners—Nikki Edwards

Employment boutique strengthens litigation bench with partner hire

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Fladgate—Milan Kapadia

Partner appointed to dispute resolution team

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Carey Olsen—Louise Stothard

Employment law offering in Guernsey expands with new hire

NEWS
Law students and graduates can now apply to qualify as solicitors and barristers with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
back-to-top-scroll