header-logo header-logo

Proof at inquests lowered

17 November 2020
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Inquests , Coronial law
printer mail-detail
The Supreme Court has lowered the appropriate standard in inquest proceedings to the balance of probabilities. Previously, a criminal standard has been applied for unlawful killing

R (oao Maugham) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 concerned the death of James Maugham, who was found hanging in his cell at HMP Bullingdon in 2016. Maugham’s brother, Thomas, contended the senior coroner erred in law in instructing the jury to apply the civil standard of proof to the question of whether Maugham took his own life.

The result of an inquest can be given as a short form conclusion, such as the word ‘suicide’, or as a narrative conclusion. The Court considered what standard of proof is required and whether the same standard should be applied to both forms of conclusion.

It dismissed Thomas Maugham’s appeal by a 3-2 majority, Lords Kerr and Reed dissenting.

Lady Arden, giving the lead judgment, said neither the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 nor the European Convention on Human Rights required a particular standard of proof for conclusions at an inquest. There was case law to the effect that conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing should be reached on the criminal standard. However, a coroner’s inquest was not a criminal proceeding.

She held the previous case law was not binding on the Supreme Court and did not identify a good reason against applying the civil standard. To apply different standards of proof for short form and narrative conclusions would be ‘internally inconsistent and unprincipled’, she said. Moreover, the reasons for suicide were ‘often complex’ and if a criminal standard were required, suicide would likely be under-recorded, which ‘is especially worrying in the case of state-related deaths’.

Lady Arden held the civil standard also applied to determinations of unlawful killing.

Dissenting, Lord Kerr said there was no inconsistency caused by short form and narrative conclusions having different standards of proof.

Deborah Coles, director of INQUEST, which intervened, said: ‘The new lower standard of proof for unlawful killing is an important and significant change to inquest law and should mark a step forward for state and corporate accountability.’

Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Inquests , Coronial law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll