No Proxy Criminal Trials in Inquests: EWCA Upholds Coroner's Decision in Birmingham Bombings

Introduction

The case of Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests v. Hambleton & Ors ([2018] EWCA Civ 2081) represents a significant judicial assessment of the boundaries and discretion afforded to coroners during inquests. This case revisits the tragic events of the Birmingham pub bombings of November 21, 1974, where bombs detonated in two crowded public houses, resulting in the deaths of 21 individuals. Decades later, family members sought to reopen the inquests to explore the identification of the perpetrators, a matter referred to as the "Perpetrator Issue." The central question posed was whether the Coroner's decision to exclude this issue from the inquest's scope was lawful.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the Coroner's decision, rejecting the High Court's directive to include the Perpetrator Issue within the inquest's scope. The High Court had quashed the Coroner's initial ruling, arguing that the Coroner failed to adequately address whether identifying the bombers was sufficiently connected to the deaths to be part of the death's circumstances. However, the Court of Appeal found that the Coroner acted within his legal discretion, emphasizing that including perpetrator identification could transform the inquest into an unlawful proxy criminal trial. The judgment reinforced the principle that inquests are designed to answer statutory questions about the deceased rather than to assign criminal liability.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engaged with several key precedents that shaped the court's reasoning:

• R v McIlkenny & others [1992] 2 All ER 417: This case established significant doubt in the scientific evidence and police conduct leading to the quashing of the Birmingham Six's convictions.
• R v North Humberside Coroner, ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1: Brought clarity to the interpretation of "how" the deceased came by death, distinguishing between "means" and broader circumstances.
• R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182: Expanded on the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), influencing the Coroner's consideration in the present case.
• R v Inner West London Coroner, ex parte Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139: Highlighted the broad discretion coroners possess in determining the scope of inquests.
• R (Maguire) v Assistant Coroner for West Yorkshire (Eastern Area) [2018] EWCA Civ 6: Reinforced the wide discretionary powers of coroners in setting the bounds of their inquiries.

These precedents collectively underscored the balancing act coroners must perform between thorough investigations and legal limitations designed to prevent inquests from encroaching upon criminal adjudications.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's decision hinged on several legal principles:

• Coroner's Discretion: Coroners possess broad discretionary powers to define the scope of an inquest, ensuring it aligns with statutory mandates rather than becoming a venue for assigning criminal guilt.
• Statutory Boundaries: Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, the primary objectives of an inquest are to determine who died, and how, when, and where they died. The act prohibits inquests from delving into questions of criminal or civil liability directly against individuals.
• Article 2 ECHR Considerations: While Article 2 imposes procedural obligations to investigate deaths, the Court clarified that this does not extend to conducting criminal investigations or determining perpetrators within an inquest.
• Prevention of Proxy Trials: Including the Perpetrator Issue could effectively turn an inquest into a criminal trial, which is constitutionally and legally impermissible.

The Court emphasized that while inquests should be thorough, they must remain within the realm of factual determinations about the circumstances of death, leaving the identification and prosecution of perpetrators to the criminal justice system.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the clear demarcation between coronial inquests and criminal proceedings. It upholds the integrity of inquests as mechanisms for understanding the circumstances of death without overstepping into the domain of assigning criminal responsibility. The ruling provides certainty for future inquests, ensuring that coroners can exercise their discretion to focus on statutory questions without the risk of inquests being misconstrued as criminal trials. Additionally, it clarifies the limits of Article 2 ECHR obligations in the context of inquests, delineating procedural duties without expanding them into criminal investigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Coroner's Discretion

The Coroner has the authority to decide what topics are included in an inquest. This means they can choose not to investigate certain issues if including them would go beyond the purpose of the inquest.

Perpetrator Issue

This refers to the examination of who was responsible for planning and carrying out the crimes—in this case, the Birmingham pub bombings. The key question was whether this should be part of the inquest.

Article 2 ECHR

This article of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to life and imposes obligations on states to properly investigate deaths, especially those involving state responsibility.

Proxy Criminal Trial

A situation where an inquest effectively acts as a criminal trial, determining guilt or innocence, which is not allowed. Inquests should focus on the factual circumstances of death, not on criminal liability.

Conclusion