Iroko, R (On the Application Of) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner London South & Anor

Iroko, R (On the Application Of) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner London South & Anor

There was no evidence of systemic or structural failure in the medical care or note taking at issue; any errors were individual, not systemic. The regulatory framework was in place and followed. The threshold for neglect was not met, and the coroner's decision not to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths report was within her discretion. The coroners did not err in law.

Parties
Claimant: Antonia Iroko; Defendant: HM Senior Coroner for Inner London South; Defendant: HM Assistant Coroner for Inner London South; Interested Party: Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Inquests, Article 2 ECHR, Neglect, Prevention of Future Deaths Report, Medical Negligence
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Medical Law Inquests Article 2 ECHR Neglect Prevention of Future Deaths Report Medical Negligence

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antonia Iroko

Claimant

HM Senior Coroner for Inner London South

Defendant

HM Assistant Coroner for Inner London South

Defendant

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the coroner erred in not holding an Article 2 inquest
  2. 2 Whether the coroner erred in not making a finding of neglect
  3. 3 Whether the coroner erred in not making a Prevention of Future Deaths report

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of systemic or structural failure in the medical care or note taking at issue; any errors were individual, not systemic. The regulatory framework was in place and followed. The threshold for neglect was not met, and the coroner's decision not to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths report was within her discretion. The coroners did not err in law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed