HM Senior Coroner Sarah Ormond-Walshe v Sherren [2024] EWHC 2332. Judgment (here) 30 July 2024
Language matters, particularly in public life. It is now well accepted that no coroner or inquest lawyer should ever say (or invite a jury to find) that someone has ‘committed suicide’. That archaic term connoting criminal conduct not only carries inappropriate pejorative connotations but, since Maughan clarified the standard of proof for suicide, it is also misleading to use a term usually associated with criminal findings.
Two High Court judges have now also made it clear why using the term ‘suicide note‘ should be strenuously avoided.
The Background
The facts that led to this s.13 application are simple and probably familiar to many coroners. The Senior Coroner had conducted an inquest into a death and, on the information available at the material time, was not satisfied she could return a finding of suicide. The deceased had been intoxicated with drugs and alcohol when he carried out the fatal act and there was little evidence of his intent.
After the inquest had concluded the family provided the Senior Coroner with a handwritten note from the deceased to his mother saying how much pain he was in, and that he wanted the pain to stop. A text message to his sister also relayed the same sentiments.
All agreed a fresh the inquest was required that could reconsider the death in the light of this fresh evidence, particularly as the bereaved mother had said that she would ‘welcome’ a conclusion of suicide.
With the Attorney General’s fiat in hand a s.13 application was made by the Senior Coroner. The High Court readily agreed that, as a fresh conclusion different from the original inquest might now be reached, holding a fresh inquest was desirable.
However, as Mrs Justice Hill observed, the draft order being put before the Court for approval referred to the deceased’s note to his mother as a ‘suicide note’. In the judge’s view it was inappropriate to describe the deceased’s note in this way, as to do so might be seen as pre-judging the conclusion of any fresh inquest.
Even where, the deceased himself had apparently describe his own document as a ‘suicide note’ the term should not be used as a descriptor. The draft order was therefore amended by agreement to remove the inappropriate words.
Commentary
This brief s.13 decision contains no new law, but is a useful reminder of how it is too easy to slip into using loose or everyday language in the context of inquests.
As this blog previously highlighted in 2021 (here), using terms such as ‘final letters’ or ‘final messages’ or even ‘pre-death communications’ more neutrally describes those communications from the deceased that will need to then be weighed up by a coroner in the context of all the other evidence. Using wholly neutral language gives an important signal that the coroner is approaching a death with an open mind and without any pre-judgement.
Another aside: Whilst discussing nomenclature another unusual feature of this case is the description of the parties in the header to the judgment, which rather unusually sets out the given name and family name of the Senior Coroner (the case also popped up on this blogger’s Westlaw alert as ‘Ormond-Walshe v Sherren’).
Coroners do not act in a personal capacity when sitting in judicial office and so ought not be personally named as a party in any civil case related to their office. Of course the identity of the person who holds the position of Senior Coroner in any Area is easily discernible, but that does not make it appropriate to personally name any judicial office holder as a party, (whether claimant/applicant or defendant/respondent) to a s.13 or judicial review claim. Best practice is for Public Law claims to be brought and defended by the role of the coroner and neither issued nor resisted personally.