R (Campbell) v HM Attorney General of England and Wales [2025] EWHC 1653 (Admin) 1 July 2025 (judgment here)

Anyone wanting the High Court to quash a finding made at an inquest and order a fresh investigation and inquest under s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 will need the approval (a fiat) of the Attorney General to proceed with their claim.  What then is the position if the Attorney General refuses to give that approval? is that the end of the road? or can the Attorney General’s refusal be challenged by judicial review?

This was the question a Divisional Court bench[1] grappled with in this factually rather remarkable case. The judgment deals only with the preliminary issue of the justiciability of a decision of the Attorney General to refuse his authority to bring an application under s.13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (it only lightly touches on the merits of the application itself). The court’s judgment takes us on an interesting historical journey through the Attorney General’s gatekeeping function in a variety of settings. At the end you will hear that gate clang shut on the Claimant: the refusal of a fiat is not judicially reviewable [2]. However, your blogger suspects there may be another instalment to come, and so that clanging gate may not yet be firmly locked and bolted.

R (Metropolitan Police Commissioner) v Police Conduct Panel [2025] EWHC 1462 (Admin)  17 June 2025,  judgment here

Skeleton arguments and written submissions are often emailed to coroners in advance of an inquest or PIRH.  The document is rarely read out in court in full, and so any press or public sitting in court may find the resulting arguments extremely difficult to understand or follow when only partial extracts from the written document are elliptically referred to in oral submissions.

In such circumstances how are those who are entitled to attend the open public inquest hearing supposed to understand the arguments relied upon by the different interested persons or to make sense of the coroner’s ruling on a relevant matter?

This recent decision by Fordham J, reminds us that, whatever the forum, open justice requires judges and tribunals to ordinarily make skeleton arguments relied upon at a public hearing available to the press promptly if requested at that hearing.  To do so promotes open justice, as to both public scrutiny and intelligibility. It also promotes contemporaneous reporting and public confidence.

Tindall and another v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33, (judgment here)

It is not coronial law under the microscope here, but rather a decision from the Supreme Court at the end of last year in a police civil action.  Nevertheless it provides helpful insight into the potential responsibility of police forces in their deployment to incidents that coroners and inquest practitioners will need to bear in mind should  a neglect or gross negligence manslaughter/unlawful killing conclusion be under consideration.

The Supreme Court was concerned with the test for the imposition of a duty of care in a civil claim for compensation.  The Court considered the elusive dividing line between ‘failing to protect a person from harm’ (where no duty of care arises) and ‘making matters worse’ (when a duty does bite). The Court acknowledged that drawing this distinction is “not always straightforward” [1] – which is perhaps something of an under-statement!

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review [2025] NICA 25 (Judgment 13 May 2025, here)

Whilst the context of this case concerns the grant of anonymity, it has much wider relevance as it addresses the legal issue of identifying the precise point at which a coroner will become functus officio, such that they can no longer take any steps related to an inquest.

That cut off point is important to know, given the power of a coroner to change previous procedural decisions generally only pertains whilst the inquest is still current[1] and so any review or amendment of an earlier coronial decision must be completed before the inquest is closed.

The specific question that arose in this case was whether a review of a grant of anonymity might be conducted after an inquest had concluded.   Spoiler alert: No it can’t. So both counsel and the coroner should be alert to the need to deal with this issue before the inquest ends.