Al Fayed, R (on the application of) v Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion concerns an application for permission to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London, who refused to call a senior member of the Royal Family to give evidence and to request another senior royal to answer specified questions during inquests into the deaths of two individuals who died in a road traffic accident in Paris over ten years prior. The applicant, a close relative of one of the deceased, alleged a conspiracy involving the senior royal and a government intelligence service. The Coroner conducted extensive hearings, admitting evidence of marginal relevance to address circulating rumours and suspicions. The Coroner ultimately decided not to call the senior royal to give evidence or to ask questions of the other royal, concluding that the inquests should focus on how the deaths occurred rather than broader speculative matters. The applicant challenged this decision, leading to the hearing and dismissal of the application for judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was expedient under section 11(2) of the Coroner's Act 1988 for the Coroner to call the senior royal to give evidence in the inquests.
2. Whether it was expedient for the Coroner to request the other senior royal to answer specified questions relevant to the inquests.
3. Whether the Coroner's refusal to call the senior royal and seek answers from the other royal was unreasonable or flawed such that judicial review was warranted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Coroner's decision to halt further evidence, including calling the senior royal and questioning the other royal, was premature and illogical.
• The Coroner misapplied the legal meaning of "expedient" under section 11(2) of the Coroner's Act 1988.
• The inquests should fully investigate not only how the deceased met their deaths but also confirm or dispel rumours and suspicions surrounding the deaths.
• The refusal to call the senior royal and question the other royal would result in insufficient evidence and an incomplete inquiry.
• The senior royal and the other royal could provide evidence directly relevant to the circumstances of the fatal accident.

Respondent's Arguments

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the Coroner's decision in light of the statutory framework and the extensive evidence already heard during the inquests. The Coroner had admitted evidence of marginal relevance to address widespread rumours and suspicions. However, the Coroner concluded that continuing to call evidence of marginal or no relevance would be detrimental to the inquiry's integrity.

The Coroner carefully examined each of the eight issues raised by the applicant's solicitors to determine whether the senior royal's evidence would assist the jury. He found no basis to alter his preliminary view that calling the senior royal was not expedient. Similarly, he concluded that seeking answers from the other royal would not aid the jury in answering the statutory questions.

The court noted that the applicant's new theory, presented late in the proceedings, lacked evidential support and was speculative. The Coroner was entitled to exercise his judgment on expediency, considering the volume and nature of evidence already presented. The court found the Coroner's reasoning neither illogical nor unreasonable and upheld his decision.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application for permission to apply for judicial review.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Coroner's refusal to call the senior royal to give evidence and to request answers from the other royal remains in place. No new precedent was established, and the inquests proceeded without further evidence from these individuals. The decision underscores the Coroner's discretion to limit evidence to that which is expedient and relevant to the statutory purpose of determining how the deceased met their deaths.