header-logo header-logo

10 December 2020 / Frederick Powell , Adam Straw
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal , Inquests
printer mail-detail

Unlawful killing & standards of proof

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll