Cooper, R (On the Application Of) v HM Coroner for North East Kent
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE MITTING
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a judicial review claim, Mr. Cooper challenged the Senior Coroner for North East Kent's decision to leave a verdict of unlawful killing by the jury during an inquest into the death of Callum Osborne, who died in an excavation accident in 2011. The coroner had initially decided against such a verdict but changed her stance in 2013 without providing reasons. The High Court refused permission for judicial review, emphasizing the reluctance to intervene in inquests, especially mid-proceedings.
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE MITTING : By this judicial review claim the claimant, Mr Cooper, seeks permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the decision of the Senior Coroner for North East Kent to leave a conclusion to the jury in an inquest which she is conducting of unlawful killing. This challenge is brought in the middle of the inquest. The circumstances of the inquest are unusual and, one hopes, not to be repeated. Callum Osborne died on 7 April 2011 when he was suffocated by earth in a trench into which he had fallen while carrying out work to excavate it. There was a police investigation. That resulted in a decision notified to the contractor who was working on the site - Mr Cooper - that he would not be prosecuted by police for any offence. The case was then referred to the Health and Safety Executive.
2. The inquest was opened before the Senior Coroner for North East Kent and a jury on 4 December 2012. The evidence concluded on 10 December 2012. On the same date the coroner, after considering the submissions from the properly interested parties (Mr Cooper, the family of the deceased man and the Health and Safety Executive), announced her decision that she would not leave a verdict of unlawful killing to the jury. She did not give reasons for that decision. She adjourned the inquest until the following day and then - because of other commitments - until 21 December. She then adjourned the inquest indefinitely. She referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service under Rule 28 of the Coroners' Rules 1984.
3. In a note attached to a letter to the properly interested parties of 1 May 2013, the coroner told them that the Crown Prosecution Service was still considering the matter albeit doing so with all due expedition. In the next letter sent to the properly interested parties on 18 December 2013 the coroner told them that she would be leaving a conclusion of unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter to the jury, the Crown Prosecution Service having decided not to refer the case to the police for further investigation. She re-stated her decision in a letter of 23 January 2014 and, I am told, re-stated it orally at the resumed hearing before herself alone on 29 January 2014.
4. The inquest has been adjourned to three days - 10, 11 and 12 March 2014 - if the jury can be re-assembled to resume the hearing on those dates.
5. The coroner has not given reasons for her change of mind although through Miss Powell, for whose h