Clarifying Article 2 Procedural Obligations: Insights from Morahan v HM Assistant Coroner for West London

Introduction

The case of Morahan, R (On the Application Of) v His Majesty's Assistant Coroner for West London ([2022] EWCA Civ 1410) addresses the intricate interplay between domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 2, which guarantees the right to life. The appellant, representing the late Tanya Morahan, challenged the coroner's decision to forego an inquest compliant with the procedural obligations imposed by Article 2. Ms. Morahan, a voluntary psychiatric patient with a history of substance abuse, died from cocaine and morphine toxicity in her flat on July 3, 2018. The central issues revolved around whether her death necessitated a procedural inquest under Article 2 and whether the Trust had an operational duty to prevent her accidental death.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, which supported the coroner's ruling that an Article 2 compliant inquest was not mandatory in Ms. Morahan's case. The court analyzed whether an operational duty existed under Article 2, which would necessitate a procedural inquest, and concluded that no such duty was owed by the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust. The judgment emphasized that procedural obligations under Article 2 arise only when there's a substantive duty to protect an individual from real and immediate risks of death, which was not evident in Ms. Morahan's circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced both domestic and Strasbourg Court precedents to delineate the boundaries of Article 2 obligations:

R (Middleton) v. West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182: Established the necessity for an explicit statement in inquests where state agents might be implicated in the circumstances of death.
R v. HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1: Interpreted "how" in Section 11(5) of the Coroners Act 1988 as "by what means" rather than "by what means and in what circumstances."
R (Gentle) v. Prime Minister [2008] 1 AC 1356: Addressed deaths of servicemen on active duty, exploring when procedural obligations arise.
R (Smith) v. Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner [2011] 1 AC 1: Examined deaths from hyperthermia in Iraq, focusing on the operational duty under Article 2.
R (L (A Patient)) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2009] 1 AC 588: Discussed the operational duty to protect individuals from suicide risks.
Osman v. United Kingdom (2000) 29 EHRR 245: Identified the "Osman duty," which obligates states to protect individuals from real and immediate threats to life.
R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2008] AC 153: Emphasized that domestic courts should align with Strasbourg jurisprudence without expanding it.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning hinged on distinguishing between substantive and procedural obligations under Article 2:

Substantive Duty: Requires the state to implement measures to protect individuals from real and immediate risks of death. This includes establishing frameworks, precautions, and enforcement mechanisms.
Procedural Duty: Arises parasitically, meaning it depends on the existence of a substantive duty. If a substantive duty exists and is breached, then a procedural inquest must comply with Article 2 standards.

In Ms. Morahan's case, the court found that there was no operational duty owed by the Trust to prevent her accidental death due to recreational drug use. The evidence did not demonstrate a foreseeable real and immediate risk of death that the Trust could have mitigated. The appellant's arguments failed to establish that the Trust had failed in a duty that would trigger the procedural obligation, thereby reinforcing the coroner's original decision.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the strict criteria for invoking Article 2 procedural obligations in inquests. By affirming that such obligations are parasitic and contingent upon a substantive duty, the decision narrows the circumstances under which inquests must adhere to Article 2 standards. It clarifies that not all deaths of psychiatric patients require a procedural inquest, particularly when the death does not arise from a breach of a protective duty by state agents. This sets a precedent that can influence future cases, ensuring that inquests are only mandated when there is a legitimate basis for suspecting a breach of the state's duty to protect life.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 2 ensures the right to life and imposes two types of obligations on states:

Substantive Obligation: The state must not unlawfully take life and must protect individuals from threats to their life.
Procedural Obligation: If there's a breach of the substantive obligation, the state must conduct a proper investigation, typically through an inquest.

Operational Duty (Osman Duty)

The operational duty requires the state to take proactive steps to prevent real and immediate threats to an individual's life. This duty is situation-specific and does not extend to all possible risks.

Procedural Obligation and Inquests

When a death occurs under circumstances that may involve a breach of the state's duty to protect life, an inquest must be conducted following the procedural standards of Article 2. This ensures transparency and accountability.

Parasitic Duty

A parasitic duty refers to an obligation that only arises in the context of another primary duty. Here, the procedural obligation only exists if there's a substantive duty to protect life that has been breached.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Morahan v HM Assistant Coroner for West London serves as a pivotal clarification in the application of Article 2 of the ECHR within the UK legal framework. By affirming that procedural obligations are contingent upon the existence of a substantive duty to protect life, the judgment delineates clear boundaries for when inquests must adhere to Article 2 standards. This ensures that inquests remain efficient and focused, triggered only by genuine concerns of state liability in protecting individuals from death risks. The ruling not only upholds the coroner's decision but also provides a nuanced understanding of the interplay between substantive and procedural obligations, guiding future legal interpretations and inquest proceedings.