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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll