|
|
Cases Reported |
| R (Leeson) v Coroner for Manchester South | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the Coroner, who would be considering inquest conclusions of accidental death or unlawful killing, was irrational to exclude from the scope of the inquest evidence relevant to a motive or reason for killing the deceased. | |
| R (Makki) v Senior Coroner for South Manchester | 6 |
| Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Coroner to refuse to reach a conclusion of either lawful killing or unlawful killing, on the grounds of insufficient evidence. | |
| R (Police Officer B50) v Assistant Coroner for the East Riding of Yorkshire & Kingston Upon Hull | 12 |
| Issue: Whether the Coroner had adopted the correct approach to the ‘Galbraith Plus test’ and ‘safety’ for leaving the conclusion of unlawful killing. | |
| Dove v (1) HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool (2) Dr Rahman | 34 |
| Issue: Whether a fresh inquest was necessary or desirable where there was new expert evidence that the abrupt cessation of DWP benefits potentially effected the deceased’s mental health; whether that fresh evidence revealed an arguable breach of Art 2 ECHR. | |
| Abbasi and Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Thomas | 49 |
| Issue: Whether to vary or discharge indefinite reporting restrictions orders made in two end-of-life medical treatment cases. | |
| R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde | 68 |
| Issue: Whether a care home owed duties under Art 2 ECHR to a resident who was deprived of her liberty and subject to a standard authorisation under Mental Capacity Act 2005. | |
| Cummings’ Application for Leave to Bring Judicial Review | 106 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner, exercising his discretion, was entitled to refuse to designate the survivor of the gun attack in which the deceased died, as a properly interested person at the subsequent inquest. | |
| Cummings v The Coroner in the Inquest into the Death of Seamus Dillon (deceased) | 114 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner, exercising his discretion, was entitled to refuse to designate the survivor of the gun attack in which the deceased died, as a properly interested person at the subsequent inquest. | |
| R (Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service) v HM Acting Senior Coroner for Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire | 124 |
| Issue: Whether the requirement that a coroner should proceed fairly meant the Claimant should be permitted to challenge the conclusions of an investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. | |
| St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Casey and others | 149 |
| Issue: Whether a declaration should be made that a person was dead, given an irreversible absence of brain stem function; whether consequential declarations that it would be lawful to withdraw ventilatory support should be made. | |
| (1) Ben Leeson (2) William Leeson v Donald McPherson | 163 |
| Issue: Whether a document recording facts agreed between the parties to civil proceedings that were yet to reach trial, should be made available to a coroner for the purpose of an inquest. | |
| Dalton’s Application | 174 |
| Issue: Whether the Human Rights Act 1998 imposed a procedural obligation to investigate deaths which occurred more than 12 years before the Act came into force on 2 October 2000. | |
| Gargan & Butler’s Application for Judicial Review | 232 |
| Issue: Whether the coroner’s decision that the criminal records of civilian eyewitnesses could be disclosed was reviewable on the grounds that it would hamper the statutory function of the inquest, and/or was disproportionate. | |
| Otitoju v Onwordi; Adesanya v Otitoju | 237 |
| Issue: Whether the executor of a will had the right to take control of the deceased’s body and arrange his funeral where the validity of that will was being disputed. | |
| Friel’s Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review | 243 |
| Issue: Whether a coroner had (i) failed to take into account relevant evidence, (ii) made findings of fact unsupported by evidence, (iii) unreasonably exercised his discretion, and/or (iv) unlawfully restricted questioning of a witness entitled to the privilege against self-incrimination, therefore requiring a fresh inquest to be held. | |