Chief Coroner publishes new guidance following Mary Hassell JR

18 May 2018 by


The Chief Coroner has issued guidance following the judgment of the Divisional Court in R (Adath Yisroel Burial Society) v Senior Coroner for Inner North London [2018] EWHC 969 (Admin) (“the AYBS Case”). The new Guidance No.28 can be found here.

The successful judicial review of the Coroner for Inner North London’s controversial ‘cab rank’ policy which led to this new guidance is discussed by this author on the Blog here.

Guidance No.22 is intended to provide “practical guidance” to coroners in situations where requests for urgent consideration of a death are made for religious (or other) reasons (paragraph 2).

For those interested how this unusual litigation came to pass, the guidance provides some more detail. It is noted that many coroners do not have funding for out of hours services, when, presumably, requests for expedition might frequently be made. It also gives details of the many other pressures on the coroner’s office during working hours (paragraphs 6-7).

It notes that the Inner North London Coroner’s policy of ruling out prioritisation of deaths on religious grounds was held to be unlawful notwithstanding resource issues.
Going forward, the guidance stresses, at paragraphs 12-13, that a coroner must make a decision considering all the circumstances. This a decision for the coroner alone under the law – it cannot be delegated to an officer or member of administrative staff.

Like the Divisional Court, the Chief Coroner has declined to provide more detailed or prescriptive guidance about particular circumstances that may arise in individual cases (see paragraph 156-7 of the judgment).

However, it emphasises that a coroner must be open to representations that a particular case should be expedited, whether on religious or other grounds, though automatic priority to deaths from a particular religious community is not required (paragraphs 14-15).

It is interesting to note that at paragraph 16 the guidance states that there is no obligation for individual coroners to adopt their own formal written policies – the coroner for Inner North London has of course indicated that it is her intention to do so, following publication of the Chief Coroner’s guidance.

Should she do so, the guidance offers general advice. Namely that such policies should be sufficiently flexible to allow due consideration to be given to expediting decisions where there is a good reason, whether religious or otherwise.

And there is perhaps some more pointed advice earlier on in the guidance at paragraph 4, where it is observed that

Many coroners engage with local community groups to improve mutual understanding.

Shaheen Rahman QC is a barrister at One Crown Office Row.



Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: