Home > yourrights > rights of the bereaved/investigations into deaths > investigations into deaths
> Challenging a Coroner's Decision
Challenging a Coroner's Decision
There is no right of appeal from an inquest. However, the Coroner’s decision and/or the Inquisition may be challenged using (a) judicial review, (b) an application to the Divisional Court under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988; or (c) an application to the High Court under the Human Rights Act.
Judicial review
The High Court may review the Coroner’s decision and in doing so has the power to order in appropriate circumstances that the inquisition be quashed and a new inquest ordered. Some examples of circumstances where the court may be prepared to order a new inquest include where there has been insufficiency of inquiry, rejection of relevant evidence, refusal to allow submissions on law, improper pressure on a jury to return a particular verdict or misdirecting the jury on the law. Judicial review is a discretionary remedy. One of the relevant aspects that the court will consider is whether it is possible that a new inquest would furnish a different verdict. Applications should be brought as soon as possible and no later than three months from the date of the decision that is challenged.
See also HOW TO ENFORCE YOUR RIGHTS
Section 13 applications
Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 provides a further mechanism of challenge to the Administrative Division of the High Court. An application can be made by or on the authority of the Attorney General to the High Court on grounds that the Coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held or, where an inquest has been held, that whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise, it is necessary in the interests of justice that another inquest be held. An application must first be made to the Attorney General for his or her permission to make an application. If permission is granted, the application proceeds to a full hearing by the Administrative Court.
Human Rights Act 1998
If the Coroner makes a decision that is inconsistent with the Convention then any individual affected by that decision may seek a remedy before the High Court.
See also HOW TO ENFORCE YOUR RIGHTS
Complaints
The Home Office has administrative responsibility for Coroners and any complaint about the administration of the Coroner service or the conduct of individual Coroners or their staff should be made first to the Coroner and if still unsatisfied to the Home Office, Coroners Section. The Home Office may refer the complaint to the Lord Chancellor who is responsible for the discipline of Coroners.
Law Reform
A report (‘fundamental review of coroner and death certification systems’) commissioned by the Home Office was published in 2003 and identifies key areas for reform of the procedures for death certification and coroner’s inquests. In response the Government published the Coroner Reform Bill in June 2006. The Bill fails to grapple with death certification, but does contain proposals for reforms of the coronial service. Following a period of consultation after the Bill was published, the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that changes would be made to key areas of policy, including provisions relating to appeals, deaths abroad, juries and lessons learnt from inquests. In February 2007 the Health Secretary announced that she would be bringing forward proposals on death certification following the Shipman Inquiry. A Consultation was subsequently issued on improving the system of death certification, which was closed on 24 October 2007. A new Coroners and Death Certification Bill is schedule to be introduced in Parliament in October 2008.
Judicial review
The High Court may review the Coroner’s decision and in doing so has the power to order in appropriate circumstances that the inquisition be quashed and a new inquest ordered. Some examples of circumstances where the court may be prepared to order a new inquest include where there has been insufficiency of inquiry, rejection of relevant evidence, refusal to allow submissions on law, improper pressure on a jury to return a particular verdict or misdirecting the jury on the law. Judicial review is a discretionary remedy. One of the relevant aspects that the court will consider is whether it is possible that a new inquest would furnish a different verdict. Applications should be brought as soon as possible and no later than three months from the date of the decision that is challenged.
See also HOW TO ENFORCE YOUR RIGHTS
Section 13 applications
Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 provides a further mechanism of challenge to the Administrative Division of the High Court. An application can be made by or on the authority of the Attorney General to the High Court on grounds that the Coroner refuses or neglects to hold an inquest which ought to be held or, where an inquest has been held, that whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise, it is necessary in the interests of justice that another inquest be held. An application must first be made to the Attorney General for his or her permission to make an application. If permission is granted, the application proceeds to a full hearing by the Administrative Court.
Human Rights Act 1998
If the Coroner makes a decision that is inconsistent with the Convention then any individual affected by that decision may seek a remedy before the High Court.
See also HOW TO ENFORCE YOUR RIGHTS
Complaints
The Home Office has administrative responsibility for Coroners and any complaint about the administration of the Coroner service or the conduct of individual Coroners or their staff should be made first to the Coroner and if still unsatisfied to the Home Office, Coroners Section. The Home Office may refer the complaint to the Lord Chancellor who is responsible for the discipline of Coroners.
Law Reform
A report (‘fundamental review of coroner and death certification systems’) commissioned by the Home Office was published in 2003 and identifies key areas for reform of the procedures for death certification and coroner’s inquests. In response the Government published the Coroner Reform Bill in June 2006. The Bill fails to grapple with death certification, but does contain proposals for reforms of the coronial service. Following a period of consultation after the Bill was published, the Minister of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that changes would be made to key areas of policy, including provisions relating to appeals, deaths abroad, juries and lessons learnt from inquests. In February 2007 the Health Secretary announced that she would be bringing forward proposals on death certification following the Shipman Inquiry. A Consultation was subsequently issued on improving the system of death certification, which was closed on 24 October 2007. A new Coroners and Death Certification Bill is schedule to be introduced in Parliament in October 2008.
