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

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
In Ward v Rai, the High Court reaffirmed that imprecise points of dispute can and will be struck out. Writing in NLJ this week, Amy Dunkley of Bolt Burdon Kemp reports on the decision and its implications for practitioners
Could the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v Hayes; R v Palombo unintentionally unsettle future complex fraud trials? Maia Cohen-Lask of Corker Binning explores the question in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll