The Inquest Book: The Law of Coroners and Inquests C Cross and N Garnham (Eds) (2016) Hart Publishing Ltd £150 ISBN: 978-1-84946- 649-3 Hardback How often when needing to quickly advise a client, draft a pithy skeleton argument or get on your feet fast to make submissions on a point of law have you thought […]
R (Tainton) v Senior Coroner for Preston and West Lancashire [2016] EWHC 1396 (Admin) The Court of Appeal in Lewis[1] made it clear that there is a power, but not a duty, to leave to an inquest jury findings regarding non-causative shortcomings which only may have led to or hastened death. A coroner has discretion […]
Read More… from Possible causation and Art 2 conclusions: Was Lewis possibly wrong?
V v Associated Newspapers Ltd and others [2016] EWCOP 21 In November 2015 the Court of Protection determined that an adult woman had the mental capacity to decide whether or not to refuse the life preserving medical treatment offered to her. She exercised her right to autonomy, refused treatment and died. Such capacity decisions are […]
Read More… from Coroners Inquests and Reporting Restrictions
R (Speck) v HM Coroner for York & (1) NHS England (2) MEDACS (Interested Parties) [2016] EWHC 6 (Admin), [2016] 4 WLR 15 In a case which serves as a reminder that an inquest should not be seen as a substitute for a public inquiry, the Admin. Court has held that, where a coroner […]
Read More… from Determining the scope of an Art 2 Inquest: the need for an arguable contribution
Today the Chief Coroner published new guidance on Pre-Inquest Review Hearings (PIRHs) and revised guidance on coroner’s conclusions (Guidance No.17 (as amended)). The newly published guidance on PIRHs reaffirms the guidance already provided in the cases of: Brown v HM Coroner for Norfolk [2014] Inquest Law Reports 91, Shafi v HM Coroner East London [2015] […]
Read More… from New Guidance No. 22 on PIRHs and revised Guidance No. 17 on Conclusions