Bennett, R (On the Application Of) v HM Coroner For Inner South London

Bennett, R (On the Application Of) v HM Coroner For Inner South London

The coroner did not err in refusing to leave a verdict of unlawful killing to the jury, as the evidence was tenuous and a verdict of unlawful killing would have been unsafe. The direction on self-defence was consistent with English law and compatible with Article 2 ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Even if the coroner had erred, the jury's verdict showed they were not persuaded of unlawful killing, so the claim would fail in any event.

Parties
Claimant: Ernest Bennett; Defendant: HM Coroner for Inner South London; Interested Party: Officer A; Interested Party: Officer B; Interested Party: Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inquests, Self Defence, Use of Force by Police, Article 2 ECHR, Unlawful Killing, Judicial Review
Public Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Inquests Self Defence Use of Force by Police Article 2 ECHR Unlawful Killing +1 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Bennett

Claimant

HM Coroner for Inner South London

Defendant

Officer A

Interested Party

Officer B

Interested Party

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the coroner erred in refusing to leave a verdict of unlawful killing to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the coroner's direction on self-defence complied with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The coroner did not err in refusing to leave a verdict of unlawful killing to the jury, as the evidence was tenuous and a verdict of unlawful killing would have been unsafe. The direction on self-defence was consistent with English law and compatible with Article 2 ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. Even if the coroner had erred, the jury's verdict showed they were not persuaded of unlawful killing, so the claim would fail in any event.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed