Factual and Procedural Background
This application for judicial review concerns a decision by Lady Justice Hallett, acting as Assistant Deputy Coroner for West London, to conduct inquests into deaths resulting from the London bombings on 7 July 2005 (the Inquests). The core issue is whether the Coroner has the authority to hold closed hearings—excluding properly interested persons and their legal representatives—to receive sensitive evidence related to the Security Service. The procedural context involves interpreting rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984, which generally mandates public inquests but allows exclusion of the public in the interests of national security.
The dispute hinges on whether "the public" in rule 17 includes properly interested persons and their legal representatives or only those not properly interested. The parties include the Home Secretary and the Security Service advocating for exclusion of properly interested persons in certain hearings, supported by some bereaved families and police forces. Opposition comes from counsel to the Inquests and other bereaved families, along with submissions from the Metropolitan Police, Media Organisations, and advocacy groups such as INQUEST, Justice, and Liberty.
The Coroner had previously ruled to investigate the "preventability" of the bombings, including potential failings by the Security Service and police forces. This involves sensitive material, some of which attracts public interest immunity (PII). The Security Service contends that closed hearings are necessary to consider all relevant material fully, while opponents argue that excluding properly interested persons undermines transparency and participation, leading to decisions based partly on undisclosed evidence without intelligible reasoning.
Legal Issues Presented
- Does rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984 empower the Coroner to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives from part of an inquest on grounds of national security?
- Can the Coroner receive and take into account closed material in such excluded hearings?
- Is there an implied power for the Coroner to hold closed sessions beyond what is expressly provided in the rules?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Home Secretary and Security Service)
- The Coroner should have the power to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives from closed hearings to consider sensitive material.
- Closed hearings would allow the Coroner to access all relevant information, including PII material, preventing unjust criticism based on incomplete evidence.
- The Coroner could then exercise circumspection in referencing sensitive material in the final decision.
Respondent's Arguments (Counsel to the Inquests and Opponents)
- Excluding properly interested persons undermines the principles of transparency and participation fundamental to inquests.
- Decisions based partly on undisclosed material without explanation would lack intelligible reasoning.
- There is no statutory provision for appointing special advocates or issuing closed decisions in coronial proceedings to mitigate closed hearings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653 |
Public investigation of deaths before independent judicial tribunal ensuring transparency, participation, and accountability. |
Used to highlight the fundamental purposes of inquests including openness and participation. |
| R (L) v Secretary of State for Justice [2009] 1 AC 588 |
Effectiveness as a hallmark of inquiries under Article 2 ECHR compliance. |
Referenced to balance transparency, participation, and effectiveness in the context of inquests. |
| Scott v Scott [1913] 1 AC 417 |
Open justice as a fundamental principle of judicial proceedings. |
Supported the presumption of openness and that exceptions require parliamentary authority. |
| Al-Rawi v Security Service [2010] EWCA Civ 482 |
Endorsement of open justice principle and limitations on exceptions. |
Reinforced that exceptions to openness must be clearly authorized by statute. |
| Garnett v Ferrand (1827) 6B + C 611 |
Coroner's inherent power to exclude disruptive persons without proper interest. |
Found not helpful for excluding properly interested persons on national security grounds. |
| R v HM Coroner for Lincoln, ex parte Hay [2000] Lloyd's Rep Med 264 |
Coroner's discretion to conduct proceedings fairly and efficiently. |
Rejected as overridden by statutory requirements limiting implied powers. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court’s analysis focused on the statutory construction of rule 17 of the Coroners Rules 1984, particularly the meaning of "the public" in the proviso allowing exclusion in the interests of national security. The court considered the historical context, including the 1953 predecessor rule and common law principles, finding no indication that "the public" includes properly interested persons and their legal representatives.
The court examined related rules (20, 37, and 57) that confer mandatory rights on properly interested persons to participate and access evidence, with no qualification for national security exclusion, reinforcing the interpretation that "the public" excludes properly interested persons. The court noted that excluding properly interested persons would frustrate transparency and participation, core aims of inquests, and would create decisions based on undisclosed material lacking intelligible reasoning.
Procedural protections available in other judicial contexts involving national security, such as special advocates and closed judgments, do not exist in coronial proceedings, further supporting the restrictive interpretation. The court also observed that Parliament had considered but not enacted legislation that would explicitly allow exclusion of properly interested persons, indicating that rule 17 should not be construed to permit such exclusion.
The court rejected the argument for an implied power to hold closed hearings excluding properly interested persons, reasoning that express statutory provisions preclude such implication. The court emphasized the inquisitorial nature of inquests but maintained that they remain judicial proceedings governed by open justice principles unless clearly limited by statute.
In sum, the court upheld the Coroner’s construction that rule 17 does not empower exclusion of properly interested persons from inquests, even in the interests of national security, and that sensitive material attracting public interest immunity must be managed without excluding these persons.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the application for judicial review, affirming the Coroner’s interpretation of rule 17.
As a direct consequence, the Coroner does not have the power to exclude properly interested persons and their legal representatives from inquests on national security grounds. Closed hearings attended only by the Security Service and limited representatives are not authorized under the current rules. The decision preserves the principles of transparency and participation fundamental to inquests, although it acknowledges practical difficulties in handling sensitive material. No new legal precedent was established beyond confirming the existing statutory framework and its interpretation.