Chief Coroner publishes new guidance following Mary Hassell JR

18 May 2018 by

2000px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(HM_Government).svg.png

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


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.

%d bloggers like this: