Sharman v HM Coroner for Inner North London & Anor

Sharman v HM Coroner for Inner North London & Anor

The coroner was not justified in leaving the verdict of unlawful killing to the jury because the evidence did not safely allow the jury to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the officers did not honestly believe they were under imminent threat. The coroner's directions and summing up failed to focus adequately...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Neil Sharman; Defendant: Her Majesty's Coroner for Inner North London; First Interested Party/appellant: Irene Stanley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Self Defence, Unlawful Killing, Coroner's Inquest, Jury Directions, Judicial Review
Criminal Law Coronial Law Administrative Law Self Defence Unlawful Killing Coroner's Inquest Jury Directions Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Sharman

Claimant/respondent

Her Majesty's Coroner for Inner North London

Defendant

Irene Stanley

First Interested Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (administrative Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the coroner was justified in leaving the verdict of unlawful killing to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the coroner's summing up and directions to the jury were adequate, particularly regarding self defence and the requirement of belief in imminent threat

Ratio Decidendi

The coroner was not justified in leaving the verdict of unlawful killing to the jury because the evidence did not safely allow the jury to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that the officers did not honestly believe they were under imminent threat. The coroner's directions and summing up failed to focus adequately on the need to disprove self defence and the requirement of belief in imminent threat. The judge was correct to quash the verdict, and there is no arguable ground for appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant's public funding assessment