Revenue And Customs, R (On the Application Of) v HM Coroner for the City of Liverpool
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE GROSS
- MR JUSTICE BURNETT
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
HMRC sought judicial review to quash notices issued by a coroner requiring an occupational history for the deceased. The court had to determine if Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 bound the Crown, thereby obligating HMRC to comply. The court decided that Schedule 5 binds the Crown by necessary implication, mandating HMRC's compliance and dismissed HMRC's application for review.
Judgment
INTRODUCTION
This is the judgment of the Court to which we have each contributed.
There was before the Court an application by the Claimants (“HMRC”) for judicial review, seeking an order quashing the Notices issued by the Defendant (“the Coroner”) dated 11 th and 27 th December, 2013 (“the Notices”). The Notices required an occupational history in respect of Mr. Roderick Carmichael (“the Deceased”) who died on 4 th October, 2013 at the University Hospital Aintree.
The Notices were issued pursuant to Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (“CJA 2009”). The principal (though not the only) issue before us was whether Schedule 5 bound the Crown by necessary implication. If “yes”, then HMRC was entitled and bound to comply with the Notices. If “no”, then, by reason of the statutory prohibition (backed by criminal sanctions) contained in s.18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (“CRCA 2005”) on the disclosure of information held by HMRC, it was neither entitled nor bound to comply with the Notices (subject to the other points argued before us).
We indicated at the hearing that the Court would endeavour to supply the parties with the result in advance of the reasoned judgment. On the 8 th April, 2014, we did so, saying this:
“ 2. The Court is satisfied that Sched. 5 of the binds the Crown by necessary implication. It follows that HMRC was and is bound to comply with the Notices…. Coroners and Justice Act 2009
3. Accordingly, the HMRC claim for Judicial Review must be dismissed.”
We now set out the reasons for our conclusion.
CHRONOLOGY
The factual and procedural history is essentially undisputed and can be shortly summarised.
As already indicated, the Deceased died on the 4 th October, 2013. After a post-mortem examination, it was the Pathologist’s conclusion that the cause of death was “1(a) Pneumonia and Asbestosis”. A history of suspected asbestos exposure at work was reported to the Coroner who decided that he would need to investigate whether the Deceased’s death was as a result of an Industrial Disease. To this end, the Coroner (a senior coroner), by letter dated 10 th October, 2013, requested an occupational history from HMRC. When HMRC failed to respond to this request, the first of the Notices was issued. It would appear that in or about November 2013 HMRC had changed its policy of releasing work histories in fatal cases (i.e., where the work history related to an individual already deceased).
Subsequent