header-logo header-logo

Unlawful killing & standards of proof

10 December 2020 / Frederick Powell , Adam Straw
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal , Inquests
printer mail-detail
34266
Adam Straw & Frederick Powell examine the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Maughan) & the consequences for conclusions of unlawful killings at inquests
  • Analysis of the recent Supreme Court case of R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner For Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 which considered the standard of proof for conclusions at inquests where the issues were whether the deceased had taken their own life, and whether there had been an unlawful killing.

The inquest

The appellant’s brother, a prisoner, died by hanging in his prison cell on 11 July 2016. The deceased had a history of mental health issues and was agitated on the previous evening, threatening self-harm. At the inquest into his death, the major issues were whether he had intended to kill himself and whether the prison authorities had caused or contributed to his death.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the coroner ruled that the jury could not safely reach a short-form conclusion (using simply the word ‘suicide’) based on the criminal

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll