header-logo header-logo

Proof at inquests lowered

17 November 2020
Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Inquests , Coronial law
printer mail-detail
The Supreme Court has lowered the appropriate standard in inquest proceedings to the balance of probabilities. Previously, a criminal standard has been applied for unlawful killing

R (oao Maugham) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 concerned the death of James Maugham, who was found hanging in his cell at HMP Bullingdon in 2016. Maugham’s brother, Thomas, contended the senior coroner erred in law in instructing the jury to apply the civil standard of proof to the question of whether Maugham took his own life.

The result of an inquest can be given as a short form conclusion, such as the word ‘suicide’, or as a narrative conclusion. The Court considered what standard of proof is required and whether the same standard should be applied to both forms of conclusion.

It dismissed Thomas Maugham’s appeal by a 3-2 majority, Lords Kerr and Reed dissenting.

Lady Arden, giving the lead judgment, said neither the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 nor the European Convention on Human Rights required a particular standard of proof for conclusions at an inquest. There was case law to the effect that conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing should be reached on the criminal standard. However, a coroner’s inquest was not a criminal proceeding.

She held the previous case law was not binding on the Supreme Court and did not identify a good reason against applying the civil standard. To apply different standards of proof for short form and narrative conclusions would be ‘internally inconsistent and unprincipled’, she said. Moreover, the reasons for suicide were ‘often complex’ and if a criminal standard were required, suicide would likely be under-recorded, which ‘is especially worrying in the case of state-related deaths’.

Lady Arden held the civil standard also applied to determinations of unlawful killing.

Dissenting, Lord Kerr said there was no inconsistency caused by short form and narrative conclusions having different standards of proof.

Deborah Coles, director of INQUEST, which intervened, said: ‘The new lower standard of proof for unlawful killing is an important and significant change to inquest law and should mark a step forward for state and corporate accountability.’

Issue: 7911 / Categories: Legal News , Inquests , Coronial law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

NLJ Career Profile: Kate Gaskell, Flex Legal

Kate Gaskell, CEO of Flex Legal, reflects on chasing her childhood dreams underscores the importance of welcoming those from all backgrounds into the profession

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dorsey & Whitney—Jonathan Christy

Dispute resolution team welcomes associate in London

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Winckworth Sherwood—Kevin McManamon

Special education needs and mental capacity expert joins as partner

NEWS
Overcrowded prisons, mental health hospitals and immigration centres are failing to meet international and domestic human rights standards, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has warned
Two speedier and more streamlined qualification routes have been launched for probate and conveyancing professionals
Workplace stress was a contributing factor in almost one in eight cases before the employment tribunal last year, indicating its endemic grip on the UK workplace
Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School highlights a turbulent end to 2025 in the civil courts, from the looming appeal in Mazur to judicial frustration with ever-expanding bundles, in his final NLJ 'The insider' column of the year
Antonia Glover of Quinn Emanuel outlines sweeping transparency reforms following the work of the Transparency and Open Justice Board in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll