R(Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin) 30 June 2025 (judgment here)
Once the investigative obligation under Article 2 ECHR is engaged an inquest will most often be the means by which the state will satisfy the procedural obligations that follow. However in situations where the inquest has been suspended due to a homicide trial then the Coroner considering whether to resume an inquest will always need to consider whether other investigative procedures of the state that have already been conducted have, collectively, satisfied the requirements of the procedural obligation.
The principles of law involved are now relatively clear. The Art.2 procedural obligation requires a state, of its own motion, to carry out an investigation into a death that: (i) has a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results; (ii) is conducted by a tribunal that is independent of the state agents who may bear some responsibility for the death; (iii) allows the relatives of the deceased to play an appropriate part in it; and (iv) is prompt and effective.
The more difficult question is how to apply that law in practice, when each case must be looked at on its own unique facts. As readers of this blog will know, in Silvera the pre-inquest investigations had not been enough. In Grice there had already been sufficient independent examination of state shortcomings for the Art.2 obligations to have been satisfied without an inquest.
This recent High Court decision adds some more colour to the complex picture. There is not really any new law here, but there is a helpful insight into how the court might approach the issue when a Coroner declines to hold an Art.2 inquest, believing enough has already been done.