Coroners are judically independent office holders

R (Carr & Glaister) v HM Assistant Coroner for North Wales (East & Central)  [2024] EWHC 1983 (Admin). 30 July 2024. (decision here).

As Coroners are slipping on their flip flops and slapping on the suncream, they can go off on holiday happy in the knowledge that it has again been formally stated by the High Court that coroners are independent judicial officers and not (as some seem to  wrongly think) to be equated with the local authority that hosts them.

This extremely brief decision was merely granting permission to bring a Judicial Review claim but it also addressed the correct venue for this judicial review challenge of a Welsh Coroner.  Although this case does not (as yet) have much law in it, it should still give some small comfort to any Coroners concerned about the recognition of their status in the judicial world.

In this eight paragraph decision Mr Justice Fordham addressed the venue in which a challenge to an inquest should be held.

The death of Benjamin Leonard on a scouting expedition[1] had occurred in Wales and had been heard by the Assistant Coroner for North Wales (albeit that he had sat in Manchester which was where Ben came from). When a Judicial Review claim challenging the inquest outcome was issued the question arose of the venue for hearing the JR claim.

The ‘Justice in Wales for the People of Wales’ report in 2019 (see here) had recommended that the correct judicial review venue in respect of Welsh Public Bodies and Coroners for Welsh areas should be Wales.   But, as Mr Justice Fordham emphasised, the position is not quite so rigid under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

CPR Practice Direction 54C addresses the venue of Administrative Court proceedings and makes it clear that there is a general expectation that proceedings will be determined in the region with which the claim has the closest connection.  Here it seems no party to the judicial review application was suggesting this claim should be heard in Wales.

Fordham J also helpfully pointed out that Coroners for Welsh areas are not a ‘Welsh Public Body’. Although the Coroners’ area was in Wales and the Coroner was appointed and funded through the relevant local authority, that only happened with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Coroner.  Coroners do not appear in the register of Welsh public bodies and, as the judge clarified, Coroners are judicially independent office holders exercising powers derived from their coronial status under, among others, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

In the special circumstances of this case therefore, the appropriate venue for dealing with this claim would be Manchester.

Comment

It is notable that a High Court judge felt the need to confirm that coroners are judicial officers, not to be equated with a public body, but wholly independent of the local authority that hosts and funds their service.  That coronial decsions are judically reviewable should not be taken as any indication that coroners do not have judicial status.

However this is perhaps a message that needs restating.  The judicial status of coroner at times appears to be overlooked by members of the press, who approach coroners asking for comment on their cases, when most journalists would never expect a High Court judge to comment upon their own decision.

Recent communications from the Chief Coroner’s office proposing that Coroners have independent web sites, that are not branded with their host local authority’s logo and messages, is another small but important step in emphasising the separation of powers. Underlining the coroner’s judicial independence from their funding body in such a way is particularly needed when a Local Authority might also be an interested person in respect of an investigation.

Footnotes

[1] the PFD report arising from the inquest is here