Farrell v Senior Coroner North East Hampshire [2021] EWHC 778 (Admin)
In this strongly worded dismissal of a s.13 application the Divisional Court (including the new Chief Coroner) were perhaps signalling to Coroners that, whilst there may be an understandable wish to placate the bereaved, detailed consideration should be given before lending one’s support to an application for a fiat for a fresh inquest. A fresh inquest cannot be justified simply to allay concerns of a member of the bereaved family, particularly where a reinvestigation would cause unwarranted distress to another.
When a family member raised suspicions of foul play – albeit with no real evidence in support – the Senior Coroner positively supported the application to the Attorney General for a fiat to apply to quash his documentary inquest into a mesothelioma death.[1] That stance was likely to have been influential in the fiat being given.
The Divisional Court have, however, now roundly dismissed the subsequent s.13 application on numerous grounds. Not only because of the lack of any evidence of the foul play being alleged, but importantly also noting that:
- A fresh inquest would cause cost and delay to the coroner’s service.
- It would divert the health professionals involved away from their public service by requiring preparation for and attendance at a hearing.
- The interests of justice do not require a family member be given a platform to air unjustified suspicions.