Howard, Re Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant is a convicted child murderer who was originally arrested and interviewed in connection with the suspected disappearance and presumed death of a young girl in 1994. Although widely assumed dead, no official finding has been made. The Applicant was one of the last persons seen with the girl before her disappearance, denied allegations, and was released without charge. In 2002, the Applicant was convicted of the murder of a different young girl in England. Subsequently, he was tried for the suspected murder of the 1994 victim but was acquitted. The body of the 1994 victim was never found, and the Applicant’s defence included the possibility that she was alive.

In November 2007, the Coroner ordered and opened an inquest into the death of the 1994 victim pursuant to statutory powers allowing inquests where a body cannot be found. The Applicant’s solicitors initially confirmed instructions to represent him at the inquest without objection. Concerns about the necessity of the inquest were first raised by the Applicant’s solicitors in 2009, questioning the need for an inquest following a criminal trial.

The Coroner engaged in correspondence with the parties, considering the impact of new legislation—the Presumption of Death Act (Northern Ireland) 2009—which provided an alternative means for death registration. Despite this, the Coroner decided to continue with the inquest, emphasizing the importance of a full exploration of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance and presumed death. The Applicant challenged the Coroner’s decision to hold the inquest by judicial review in May 2011.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Coroner’s decision to hold an inquest into the death of a missing person, following a criminal trial and acquittal of the Applicant, was irrational.
2. Whether the existence of alternative legal mechanisms for presuming death (such as the Presumption of Death Act 2009) precludes the necessity of holding an inquest.
3. Whether the Applicant’s challenge to the Coroner’s decision was brought within a timely manner.
4. The scope and discretion of the Coroner in holding or resuming inquests after criminal proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Coroner’s decision to hold an inquest was irrational given that a criminal trial had fully examined the circumstances of the suspected death.
• It had not been established that the missing person was dead, and evidence existed undermining the presumption of death.
• The Coroner should explain the basis for concluding that the person is dead and justify the necessity of an inquest despite the criminal trial.
• The Presumption of Death Act 2009 provides an alternative route for death registration, making the inquest unnecessary.

Respondent's (Coroner's) Arguments

• Section 16 of the Coroner’s Act 1959 provides statutory authority to hold an inquest where the body cannot be found.
• The Coroner has discretion to hold or resume inquests after criminal trials if there is sufficient cause, and the mere existence of a criminal trial does not preclude an inquest.
• The inquest offers the only possible means for the family to register the death and obtain closure, which alternative legal mechanisms do not fully provide.
• The Presumption of Death Act 2009 does not provide a full exploration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance and presumed death.
• The Applicant’s challenge was brought out of time, as the decision to hold the inquest was communicated in 2007 and initially accepted without objection.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McKerr & Ors	Establishes that the acquittal of defendants in criminal trials does not preclude the Coroner from opening an inquest.	The court referenced McKerr to demonstrate that the statutory scheme allows inquests after criminal trials when the Coroner forms an opinion of sufficient cause.
Jordan, McKerr, Kelly & Shanaghan v UK [2001] 11 BHRC 1	Relates to the requirement for prompt and effective investigations under Convention law.	The court cited this case to emphasize the importance of promptitude in inquest proceedings and the consequences of delay on grieving families.
McKerr [2004] UKHL 12	Addresses the scope of inquests in light of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.	The Coroner’s correspondence referred to this ruling to explain constraints on determining the date of death and scope of inquests.
Hurst [2007] UKHL 13	Further jurisprudence on Article 2 ECHR obligations regarding investigations into deaths.	Referenced to explain the legal context in which the Coroner must consider the scope and necessity of an inquest.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the statutory authority granted to the Coroner under Section 16 of the Coroner’s Act 1959 to hold inquests where no body can be found. It recognized that the Coroner’s discretion to hold or resume an inquest after a criminal trial is broad and fact-specific, governed by Rule 13 of the Coroner’s Rules, which allows resumption of an inquest if there is sufficient cause.

The court rejected the notion that holding an inquest after a criminal trial requires an exceptional justification, clarifying that the correct test is whether there is sufficient cause. It emphasized that the criminal trial does not automatically preclude an inquest, particularly where the trial did not resolve the question of death conclusively.

Regarding the Applicant’s challenge, the court found that the initial decision to hold the inquest was made public in 2007 and accepted without objection, rendering the challenge brought four years later out of time. The court noted the Applicant’s delay and the absence of prompt judicial review within the statutory timeframe.

The court also analyzed the Coroner’s engagement with the parties over the impact of the Presumption of Death Act 2009, concluding that the Coroner’s decision to continue the inquest was reasonable. The Coroner’s view that the inquest provided a fuller investigation and was more appropriate for the family’s needs than alternative legal mechanisms was supported.

The court highlighted the importance of promptness in inquest proceedings, noting significant delay in this case. It underscored that delays undermine public confidence and cause distress to the next of kin. The court urged the Coroner to proceed expeditiously with the inquest.

Finally, the court applied the Wednesbury standard of irrationality to the Coroner’s decision and found no compelling evidence to establish that the decision was irrational or legally perverse. The statutory discretion vested in the Coroner was broad, and the court was not entitled to substitute its own judgment.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Applicant’s judicial review challenge to the Coroner’s decision to hold an inquest.

The direct effect of this decision is that the inquest into the disappearance and presumed death of the young girl will proceed as determined by the Coroner. The court emphasized the necessity of prompt conduct of the inquest to provide closure to the family. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirmed established principles regarding the Coroner’s discretion and the procedural requirements for judicial review challenges to such decisions.