Hamilton-Jackson, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Coroner for Mid Kent and Medway [2016] EWHC 1796 (Admin) (19 July 2016)

Hamilton-Jackson, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Coroner for Mid Kent and Medway [2016] EWHC 1796 (Admin) (19 July 2016)

The Assistant Coroner failed to properly direct the jury on the meaning and application of the national and local ACCT policies, leaving the interpretation to the jury and causing misdirection. This rendered the answer to question 2 of the jury questionnaire unsafe and in breach of the procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR. The handwritten jury comment was not unlawful. Relief is limited to quashing question 2 and its answer; a fresh inquest is not ordered.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1796 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Maxine Hamilton-Jackson; Defendant: HM Assistant Coroner for Mid Kent and Medway
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Partial relief granted
Legal Topics
Inquest Procedure, Article 2 ECHR, Coroners and Justice Act 2009, Policy Interpretation, Judicial Review
Public Law Coronial Law Human Rights Inquest Procedure Article 2 ECHR Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Policy Interpretation Judicial Review

Case Brief

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxine Hamilton-Jackson

Claimant

HM Assistant Coroner for Mid Kent and Medway

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Assistant Coroner misdirected the jury regarding the ACCT policies and their application to the facts
  2. 2 Whether the jury's answer to question 2 of the questionnaire was unsafe due to misdirection
  3. 3 Whether the jury's handwritten comment was unlawful under section 5(3) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The Assistant Coroner failed to properly direct the jury on the meaning and application of the national and local ACCT policies, leaving the interpretation to the jury and causing misdirection. This rendered the answer to question 2 of the jury questionnaire unsafe and in breach of the procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR. The handwritten jury comment was not unlawful. Relief is limited to quashing question 2 and its answer; a fresh inquest is not ordered.

Court Disposition

Partial relief granted

Orders

  • Question 2 of the jury questionnaire and its answer are quashed
  • No fresh inquest ordered