header-logo header-logo

Unlawful killing & standards of proof

10 December 2020 / Frederick Powell , Adam Straw
Issue: 7914 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Criminal , Inquests
printer mail-detail
34266
Adam Straw & Frederick Powell examine the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (Maughan) & the consequences for conclusions of unlawful killings at inquests
  • Analysis of the recent Supreme Court case of R (Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner For Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46 which considered the standard of proof for conclusions at inquests where the issues were whether the deceased had taken their own life, and whether there had been an unlawful killing.

The inquest

The appellant’s brother, a prisoner, died by hanging in his prison cell on 11 July 2016. The deceased had a history of mental health issues and was agitated on the previous evening, threatening self-harm. At the inquest into his death, the major issues were whether he had intended to kill himself and whether the prison authorities had caused or contributed to his death.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the coroner ruled that the jury could not safely reach a short-form conclusion (using simply the word ‘suicide’) based on the criminal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll