“Flagrant disregard for the inquest and its processes” – fines, prosecution and double jeopardy

Written by: Bridget Dolan KC
Published: 4 September 2019

R v Lawrence [2019] Wimbledon Magistrates Court

The unprecedented tale of “Dr.” Duncan Lawrence and his withholding of information from a coroner about his involvement in the death of the teenager Sophie Bennett has already gripped the headlines. This highly unusual criminal prosecution of a healthcare staff member who failed to give evidence at an inquest into the death of one of his patients is thought to be the first of its kind under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009[1]. The saga has now taken a further extraordinary turn.

Despite having pleaded “100% guilty” on 16 August 2019, on subsequently attending court for sentencing Lawrence sought and was given an adjournment so that he may consider resiling from his earlier guilty plea.

The question that arises is whether, having already been fined £650 in May 2019 by the Assistant Coroner for his non-attendance at the inquest (pursuant to Schedule 6 part 6 CJA 2009), Lawrence is being put in double jeopardy by the additional criminal prosecution of him under Schedule 6 part 7 of the Act.

Over half a century later it’s still in the interest of justice to order a fresh inquest

Written by: Rachel Spearing
Published: 29 July 2019

Frost v HM Coroner for West Yorkshire (Eastern District) [2019] EWHC 1100 (Admin)

Where new evidence becomes available which renders an inquest’s factual basis inaccurate the interests of justice remain the touchstone for applications under section 13: even the passage of over half a century does not remove the necessity and desirability of ordering a fresh inquest.

Here a bereaved brother successfully applied to quash the decision of the Inquest held in 1966 (under the 1926 Act), which had found that Ian Spencer had murdered his 14 year old sister, Elsie Frost.

Spencer had been committed for trial, but the Crown had offered no evidence against him. A new investigation initiated in 2015 had implicated another man, Peter Pickering, who was already serving a life sentence for manslaughter of a 14 year old in 1972. However, Pickering died in 2018 before a charging decision could be made. The police twice publicly stated they believed he had killed Elsie.

The Coroner questioned the value of a fresh Inquest both in terms of the public interest and the interests of the families, and so left it to the bereaved family to go through the process of seeking a fiat and making an application for a fresh inquest. The Divisional Court clearly did not share the Coroner’s concerns. Indeed, the judgment provides a handy ‘nutshells’ review of the issues relevant to the passage of time in an application under section 13, including the interests of the bereaved, of properly exploring deaths and of setting the record straight. The issue of whether 53 years should render the further investigation into the tragic case unnecessary did not trouble the court,

“Public interest has not been significantly vitiated by the lapse of time”

Seeking a secret inquest? A lesson in how NOT to go about asking for reporting restrictions

Written by: Bridget Dolan KC
Published: 28 June 2019

Re AB (Application for reporting restrictions: Inquest) [2019] EWHC 1668 (QB)

When seeking any order it always helps to make the right application, to the right court, following the right procedure. Although when it does go horribly wrong it at least provides valuable learning for the rest of us.

So make sure you are sitting comfortably, and get ready to be educated by Mr Justice Pepperall dishing out a lesson on making an application for reporting restrictions in respect of an inquest.

Geoff Gray Inquest: PFD report directed at the Chief Coroner

Written by:
Published: 21 June 2019

Inquest into the death of Geoff Gray, 20.6.2019 (Findings of fact)

In what must be a coronial first an assistant coroner has issued a ‘PFD report’[1] (available here) directed at the Chief Coroner suggesting he may be able to take action himself to prevent future deaths by issuing guidance to coroners regarding post-mortem investigations after shooting cases.

On 20 June 2019 HH Peter Rook QC[2] concluded the second inquest into the death of Geoff Gray. Geoff was 17 years old when he died from two gunshot wounds to the head at Deepcut Barracks in Surrey in 2001. Evidence heard at the fresh inquest revealed that very soon after Geoff’s body being found the assumption had been made by attending civilian and military police and by the coroner’s officer that Geoff’s death was a suicide. Therefore only a ‘routine’ coronial post-mortem was requested which was performed on the day of the death.

Two earlier deaths of young trainees from gunshot wounds[3] at the same barracks in 1995 were also both investigated with ‘routine’ coronial post-mortems. In one case the post-mortem had been carried out by a general histopathologist, who had no experience of performing an autopsy following a death from high velocity gunshot wounds.

But, as the expert forensic pathologist in Geoff Gray’s case stated,

“shooting cases are not routine…if you make assumptions early on in the investigation, then there is the likelihood, and indeed the probability, that vital evidential material is lost”.

Geoff Gray Inquest: Coroner returns a conclusion of ‘suicide’

Written by: Rebecca de Hoest
Published: 21 June 2019

Inquest into the death of Geoff Gray, 20.6.2019 (Findings of fact)

The long running second inquest into the death of Private Geoff Gray at Deepcut Barracks ended yesterday when HH Peter Rook QC[1] returned a conclusion of suicide.

Geoff was only 17 years old when he was found dead from gunshot wounds in the grounds of the Officers’ Mess at approximately 01.10 hours on 17 September 2001. This fresh inquest, which was ordered by the High Court in 2017, had, in particular, explored whether Geoff had been shot by another person who had then moved his body to the location where it was found.