Establishing the Right to a Fresh Inquest: Analysis of Dove v HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool & Anor ([2023] EWCA Civ 289)

Introduction

Dove v HM Assistant Coroner for Teesside and Hartlepool & Anor ([2023] EWCA Civ 289) is a significant case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on March 17, 2023. The case revolves around the tragic death of Jodey Whiting, a 42-year-old woman who died by suicide on February 21, 2017, due to an overdose of prescription medication. Joy Dove, Jodey's mother and the appellant, challenged the initial inquest's determination of suicide, seeking a fresh inquest based on new evidence that emerged after the original proceedings.

The core issues in this case pertain to the applicability of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, which allows for the quashing of an inquest's findings and the ordering of a new inquest if deemed necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. Additionally, the case examines whether the Department of Work and Pensions owed an Article 2 operational duty under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, thereby influencing the necessity of a fresh inquest.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal addressed two primary grounds of appeal presented by Mrs. Dove:

1. The Divisional Court erred in concluding that a fresh Jamieson inquest was unnecessary despite new evidence suggesting that the abrupt cessation of benefits by the Department may have adversely affected Jodey's mental health.
2. The Divisional Court wrongly determined that a fresh Middleton inquest was not warranted in light of potential breaches of Article 2 of the Convention, implying an operational duty owed to Jodey by the Department.

The Court of Appeal found merit in the first ground, recognizing the desirability of a fresh Jamieson inquest based on the new evidence, particularly the expert psychiatric report linking the Department's actions to Jodey's deteriorating mental state. However, the second ground concerning Article 2 was dismissed, as the court concluded that the Department did not owe an operational duty to Jodey under the Convention.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior cases to contextualize and support its reasoning. Key precedents include:

• R (Sutovic) v HM Coroner Northern District of Greater London [2006] EWHC 1095: This case elaborated on the broad scope of Section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988, emphasizing that the necessity for a fresh inquest could arise from various factors, including the discovery of new facts or evidence.
• Attorney-General v HM Coroner of South Yorkshire (West) [2012] EWHC 3783 (Admin) (Hillsborough case): Provided guidance on assessing whether the interests of justice necessitate a further inquest, particularly when fresh evidence could reveal the substantial truth about the circumstances of death.
• Moses LJ and Beatson J's judgment in Sutovic: Highlighted the criteria for initiating a fresh inquest, focusing on the possibility of a different verdict, shortcomings in the original inquest, and the need to investigate new evidence.
• R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] UKHL 10 and R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] 2 AC 189: These cases discussed the expanded scope of inquests when Article 2 of the Convention is engaged, requiring a broader examination of the circumstances leading to death.
• R (Longfield Care Homes Ltd) v HM Coroner for Blackburn [2004]: Demonstrated the coroner's discretion to substitute factual conclusions to better reflect contributing factors to death.
• Davison v HM Senior Coroner for Hertfordshire [2022] EWHC 2343 (Admin): An illustrative case where fresh evidence led to the ordering of a new inquest due to the potential public interest in the causal links between state actions and an individual's death.

These precedents collectively underscore the coroner's discretion in determining the necessity of a fresh inquest and the broad interpretation of "interests of justice."

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the grounds of appeal, particularly focusing on the fresh evidence introduced post the original inquest. The fresh evidence comprised:

• An Independent Case Examiner (ICE) Report highlighting systemic and individual failings by the Department of Work and Pensions in handling Jodey's case.
• An expert psychiatric report by Dr. Trevor Turner, linking the abrupt cessation of benefits to a likely deterioration in Jodey's mental state, thus contributing to her suicide.

The court acknowledged that while the ICE Report detailed significant shortcomings, these were outside the scope of the initial Jamieson inquest, which focused on answering factual questions about the manner of death. However, Dr. Turner's report directly addressed causation, a critical element in determining the need for a fresh inquest. The court recognized that this expert evidence provided an objective basis to reassess the factors contributing to Jodey's death, aligning with the criterion that fresh evidence should illuminate aspects not adequately covered in the original inquest.

Regarding the second ground concerning Article 2, the court reiterated the stringent criteria established in Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust and subsequent cases. The Department was found not to have assumed responsibility for Jodey's welfare in a manner that would trigger an operational duty under Article 2, primarily because there was no evidence of a real and immediate risk to her life that the Department was aware of or should have been aware of.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the coroner's discretionary power to order fresh inquests when new evidence substantially impacts the understanding of the circumstances surrounding a death. It highlights the judiciary's willingness to re-examine cases in the light of new, compelling evidence, ensuring that the pursuit of substantial truth remains robust and responsive to evolving facts.

Furthermore, the dismissal of the Article 2 ground delineates the boundaries of state responsibility under human rights conventions in similar contexts. It clarifies that operational duties under Article 2 are narrowly construed and tied to specific conditions, thereby preventing an expansive interpretation that could burden public authorities with unprecedented responsibilities.

Future cases involving the withdrawal of benefits and their potential impact on vulnerable individuals may draw on this judgment to assess whether fresh inquests are warranted based on new evidence, especially when expert testimony offers a different perspective on causation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988

Section 13 empowers the High Court to annul a coroner's findings and mandate a new inquest if it deems such action necessary or desirable in the interests of justice. This provision is typically invoked when there are significant shortcomings in the original inquest or when new evidence surfaces that could substantially alter the understanding of the death.

Jamieson Inquest

A Jamieson inquest is a type of inquest focused on answering specific factual questions about the deceased, such as how and when they died. It does not delve into broader circumstances unless Article 2 of the Convention is engaged, requiring a more comprehensive examination of the factors leading to death.

Article 2 Operational Duty

Under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 protects the right to life. An operational duty arises when the state is required to take proactive steps to protect an individual's life under specific circumstances, such as when the individual is in state custody or under direct state control.

Causation in Inquests

In the context of inquests, causation refers to whether specific events or actions contributed more than minimally to the deceased's death. It is assessed on the balance of probabilities, meaning it must be more likely than not that the factor in question contributed to the death.

Conclusion