Pritchard, R (on the application of) v HM Coroners for Oxfordshire & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for permission to appeal a decision originally made by Judge Sullivan, who refused permission on the papers. The appellant challenges the refusal, focusing on the continuing obligation of the United Kingdom to conduct an inquest compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The procedural history includes a prior decision by a coroner on 5 October 2005 not to hold an Article 2 compliant inquest, which is a key factual and procedural element in the case.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the United Kingdom has a continuing obligation to carry out an Article 2 compliant inquest despite the passage of time, provided it remains reasonably practical to do so.
2. Whether this continuing obligation overrides procedural time limits, such as those set out in CPR 54.5.
3. The legal effect of a specific coroner's decision not to hold an Article 2 compliant inquest on the obligation to conduct such an inquest.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The United Kingdom has an ongoing obligation under Article 2 of the ECHR to conduct an inquest compliant with the Convention, which does not lapse merely due to the passage of time.
• This obligation should take precedence over procedural time limits such as those in CPR 54.5, allowing for the inquest to be held if it remains reasonably practical.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the appellant's argument that the obligation under Article 2 to conduct an inquest compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights persists over time, provided it is reasonably practical to carry out the investigation. However, the court noted the difficulty in overcoming the procedural bar given that there was a specific coroner's decision in 2005 not to hold such an inquest, which is more than a mere failure to hold one. The court considered the cited Strasbourg jurisprudence, which lent some support to the appellant's position, but recognized that the argument would face a challenging struggle before the full court. Balancing these considerations, the court was persuaded that the importance and complexity of the issues warranted granting permission to appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court granted the renewed application for permission to appeal, with the order stating: Application granted.

The direct effect is that the appellant is permitted to pursue an appeal on the substantive question of the continuing Article 2 obligation to hold an inquest. The opinion does not establish any new precedent but allows further judicial consideration of the important and nuanced legal issues involved.