In Suspicious Circumstances

Product Information

Prosecutors should note there is one circumstance where the coroner will have automatic jurisdiction (power to exercise their function): where a death caused by natural causes occurs in a prison or other place of 'custody'. These cases will automatically be referred to the Coroner for an inquest and will be held with a jury present. The law was introduced in response to ring rot outbreaks in Poland. In 2012, the Food and Environment Research Agency reinforced the guideline, by demanding a ring rot test certificate accompany the spuds. Coroners will also hold inquests where the death may have occurred abroad and the body is repatriated, and will usually take place in the jurisdiction where the deceased lived before their travel. Inquests for destroyed or irrecoverable bodies

the risk of harm to persons or property from the possession of explosives, whether or not this materialised The conclusion of unlawful killing is restricted to the criminal offences of murder, manslaughter (including corporate manslaughter), and infanticide. Cases where driving causes death may, therefore, only be regarded as unlawful killing for inquest purposes if they satisfy the ingredients for manslaughter (gross negligence manslaughter) or where a vehicle is used as a weapon of assault and deliberately driven at a person who dies (murder or manslaughter depending on the intent). Standard of Proof & Unlawful Killing Conclusions Coroners or a jury may also deliver a 'narrative' conclusion which sets out the facts surrounding the death in more detail. This longer explanation will include the coroner's or jury's conclusions on the main issues arising in the surrounding circumstances of the death. The Coroner is also not bound by the list of suggested conclusions above; this means that as long as the Coroner can form a conclusion which is concise and indicates how the deceased came by their death, a narrative verdict is acceptable. The Coroner is unable to apportion any blame or civil or criminal liability of another individual (as defined by section 10(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Coronial jurisdictions Since Middleton there have been a small number of cases which illustrate other examples of State involvement and will be of interest to prosecutors. In R (on the application of Christine Hurst) v HM Coroner for Northern District of London [2003] EWHC 1721 Admin the deceased was killed by a man known to be violent and potentially mentally ill, and was someone he had given evidence against in eviction proceedings. It was argued the police and local authority could have foreseen the incident and that it was preventable, as both bodies were aware the victim (Hurst) was in danger from his eventual killer (Albert Reid convicted of manslaughter in 2001). Additionally, in Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245, had the authorities done all that was reasonably expected of them, they could have avoided the threat to the life of an individual of which they had, or ought to have had knowledge. In this case the individual was known to the police and education authorities to have been harassing and threatening students and their parents; he went on to kill one of the student's parents and a teacher at the school. Coroners often query why charges have not been brought when in their view it is in the public interest to charge a suspect(s). Prosecutors may need to explain the stages of the Full Code Test in detail to reassure the Coroner that thorough considerations have been made. What happens when criminal proceedings have been finalised?

The majority of deaths are not reported to the Coroner and, in most cases the deceased's doctor will issue a medical certificate with the cause of death without reference to a coroner, especially if they have been treated for an illness which caused the death. When considering the legislation and authorities concerning the offences in sections 2, 3 and 4 ESA 1883, prosecutors should in particular note the following. Explosive substance

A Coroner can request information from the LSCB as part of their inquest investigation, and it is the responsibility of the Chair of the Board to make the decision as to what should be released. The Chair will usually consult with the agencies involved, and may request to agencies to suggest redactions to any document proposed for release. Given the CPS' role with these panels, it is likely that most information we provide to the Board or Panel will be disclosed; however, prosecutors should redact information if they consider it inappropriate to be disclosed. for throwing/discharging a firework in a public place, see section 80 Explosive Substances Act 1875 (financial penalty only) It’s also against the law to sound a horn whilst the vehicle is stationary or while in a built-up area between 11.30 pm and 7am.

Follow Us

Handling a salmon in suspicious circumstances is actually a new law enshrined in Section 32 of the Salmon Act 1986. Prosecutors should note that the case of Evandro Lagos and HM Coroner for the City of London and Anele Austin [2013] EWHC 423 (Admin) re-affirms the law that the family are not entitled to have the police report. The report is for the Coroner only. Further onward disclosure would be for discussion with the police. (The same principle will apply to disclosure of reports from the CPS). Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) Article 2 inquests are enhanced inquests held in cases where the State or 'its agents' have 'failed to protect the deceased against a human threat or other risk' or where there has been a death in custody. Cases where the deceased has been under the care or responsibility of social services or healthcare professionals are also often included in this category of inquest. Where the Coroner is requested to adjourn an inquest under paragraphs 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the CPS should ensure the reasons for adjournment (ultimately, that a suspect has been charged in connection with deceased's death) cover the circumstances in which the death occurred, and that this is properly communicated to the Coroner. Where the offence is one other than those listed under paragraph 1(6) of Schedule 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the prosecutor should clearly communicate the reason why the coroner should adjourn the inquest.