Accessing protected AIB material in a criminal trial

 ORR and Dorris v Secretary of State for Transport [2023] EWCR 1 (judgment here) This judgment, that was held back until the completion of a criminal trial, highlights again the thorny issue of the disclosure into subsequent legal proceedings of ‘protected material’ that has been collected during an independent Accident Investigation Branch’s (‘AIB’) investigation. Limited […]

Read More… from Accessing protected AIB material in a criminal trial

Adopting Accident Investigation Branch reports and the requirement to conduct Inquests fairly

R(Mid and West Wales Fire & Rescue Service) v Senior Coroner for Pembrokeshire & Carmarthenshire and Marine Accident Investigation Branch [2023] EWHC 1669 (Admin) 12.7.23 (judgment here)   The High Court’s Norfolk[1] decision has sat uneasily with some in the coronial law community. Although coroners have a statutory duty to investigate a cause of death, […]

Read More… from Adopting Accident Investigation Branch reports and the requirement to conduct Inquests fairly

Supreme Court outlines Art 2 obligations in community & healthcare settings

R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde, [2023] UKSC 20 (judgment here) Anyone who had been holding their breath waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in Maguire can now breathe out.    Nothing has changed.   The Senior Coroner, the Chief Coroner,[1] a High Court judge, and four Court of Appeal judges were all […]

Read More… from Supreme Court outlines Art 2 obligations in community & healthcare settings

Refusal to answer a question seeking an opinion may be a contempt of court

R (Bailey) v Secretary of State for Justice [2023] EWHC 821 (Admin)  (judgment here) A challenge to the Secretary of State for Justice amending the Parole Board rules and issuing guidance about those changes is not obvious bed-time reading for those who work in the coronial jurisdiction.   But hidden within the series of judgments arising […]

Read More… from Refusal to answer a question seeking an opinion may be a contempt of court