Aineto, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove

Aineto, R (on the application of) v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove

The Coroner erred in law by failing to summon a jury because there was reason to suspect the death was caused by a reportable accident under section 8(3)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988, as the driver's activities were closely connected with the loading of refuse bins, satisfying the regulatory requirements.

Parties
Claimant: Sandrine Aineto; Defendant: HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Section 13 Application (coroners Act 1988) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; verdict quashed; fresh inquest ordered
Legal Topics
Inquests, Duty to Summon Jury, Procedural Irregularity, Article 2 ECHR, Health and Safety Reporting, Judicial Review, Section 13 Coroners Act
Administrative Law Coronial Law Human Rights Inquests Duty to Summon Jury Procedural Irregularity Article 2 ECHR Health and Safety Reporting +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandrine Aineto

Claimant

HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Section 13 Application (coroners Act 1988) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Coroner erred in failing to summon a jury under section 8(3)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether the death was reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995
  3. 3 Whether a fresh inquest should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Coroner erred in law by failing to summon a jury because there was reason to suspect the death was caused by a reportable accident under section 8(3)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988, as the driver's activities were closely connected with the loading of refuse bins, satisfying the regulatory requirements.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; verdict quashed; fresh inquest ordered

Orders

  • The verdict of the inquest is quashed.
  • A fresh inquest is to be conducted before a different Coroner and a jury from a different administrative district.