Jones v HM Coroner for Gwent & Anor [2015] EWHC 3178 (Admin) (05 November 2015)

Jones v HM Coroner for Gwent & Anor [2015] EWHC 3178 (Admin) (05 November 2015)

The application was refused because the opinion of Mr Heywood QC and the DPP's revised position did not constitute new facts or evidence; the Coroner's verdict was based on the evidence available and was not shown to be legally improper; section 13 is not a substitute for an out-of-time judicial review; and, even if section 13 were applicable, the significant delay and lack of wider public interest would make it contrary to the interests of justice to reopen the inquest.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3178 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Nathan Jones (on behalf of Sharon Mills and Nathan Jones, the parents of Mason Jones); Defendant: HM Coroner for Gwent; Intervener: William Tudor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 / High Court Review of Application to Quash Inquest and Order a Fresh Inquest
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Inquest, Gross Negligence Manslaughter, Judicial Review, Section 13 Coroners Act 1988, Delay in Proceedings
Administrative Law Coroners Law Criminal Law Inquest Gross Negligence Manslaughter Judicial Review Section 13 Coroners Act 1988 Delay in Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Jones (on behalf of Sharon Mills and Nathan Jones, the parents of Mason Jones)

Claimant

HM Coroner for Gwent

Defendant

William Tudor

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Application Under Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 / High Court Review of Application to Quash Inquest and Order a Fresh Inquest

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should quash the original inquest verdict and order a fresh inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988
  2. 2 Whether new evidence or facts justify reopening the inquest
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require a fresh inquest

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the opinion of Mr Heywood QC and the DPP's revised position did not constitute new facts or evidence; the Coroner's verdict was based on the evidence available and was not shown to be legally improper; section 13 is not a substitute for an out-of-time judicial review; and, even if section 13 were applicable, the significant delay and lack of wider public interest would make it contrary to the interests of justice to reopen the inquest.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to quash the inquest and order a fresh inquest is refused