Duggan, R (on the application of) v HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for the Northern District of Greater London & Ors, England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Advocates

Hugh Southey QC and Adam Straw (instructed by Birnberg Peirce & Partners) for the Appellant
Ashley Underwood QC (instructed by Philippa Long on behalf of the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent

Judges

LORD JUSTICE DAVIS
SIR TERENCE ETHERTON MR
LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL

See more information ...

Click here to read the full judgment

Duggan, R (on the application of) v. HM Assistant Deputy Coroner for the Northern District of Greater London & Ors

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On 4 August 2011, during a police operation based on intelligence that the deceased was transporting a firearm across London, the deceased's minicab was stopped by armed police officers. The officer known as V53 shot the deceased twice, one shot being fatal. The incident sparked substantial public disorder. An inquest into the death was held from September 2013 to January 2014 before the Assistant Deputy Coroner for the Northern District of Greater London. The jury, after hearing evidence from numerous witnesses including police officers and local residents, concluded by majority that the killing was lawful, accepting the officer's claim of lawful self-defence.

The appellant, the deceased's mother, challenged the adequacy of the coroner's directions to the jury and the conclusion of lawful killing. The Divisional Court dismissed her claim for judicial review in October 2014. This appeal arises from that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the coroner's directions to the jury on lawful self-defence were adequate, specifically regarding the need to consider the reasonableness of the officer's belief in an imminent threat.
Whether the jury should have applied the civil law test for self-defence, requiring an objectively reasonable belief, rather than the criminal law test, which requires only an honest belief.
Whether the coroner's directions complied with the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the effective investigation of deaths involving state agents.
Whether the coroner should have directed the jury to consider civil law implications of the killing in addition to criminal law considerations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The coroner failed to direct the jury that if they were sure the deceased did not have a gun at the moment of being shot, they could not find lawful killing, to avoid inconsistent conclusions and insufficient evidence.
A mistaken belief in an imminent threat cannot justify lawful killing unless the mistake was objectively reasonable, aligning with civil law and Article 2 jurisprudence.
The coroner misdirected the jury by not requiring satisfaction on the balance of probabilities that the officer genuinely believed in the threat, rather than leaving open the possibility of mere belief.
Lethal force by a state agent is lawful only if it is 'absolutely necessary', not merely 'reasonable', and the coroner's directions failed to reflect this higher standard, breaching Article 2 procedural obligations.
The jury should have been directed to apply the civil law test for self-defence, which requires an objectively reasonable belief, rather than the criminal law test.
The inquest failed to investigate potential breaches of civil law, which the appellant argued is necessary to satisfy Article 2's procedural requirements.

Respondent's Arguments

The coroner's directions were consistent with established criminal law principles and customary in inquests, adequately addressing self-defence.
The subjective test for self-defence, focusing on honest belief regardless of objective reasonableness, is consistent with Article 2 as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
The jury was properly directed to consider all relevant evidence bearing on the honesty and genuineness of the officer's belief, including the reasonableness implicitly.
There is no requirement under domestic law or Article 2 for an inquest to apply or investigate civil law standards of self-defence or liability.
Giving directions on the civil law test or requiring separate findings on civil liability would cause confusion and is not the function of an inquest.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Williams (Gladstone) [1987] 3 All ER 411	Confirmed that an honest belief in self-defence, even if mistaken, negates guilt; reasonableness relevant only to whether belief was held.	The court applied this to affirm the subjective limb of self-defence in criminal law as the appropriate test for lawful killing at inquest.
Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] UKHL 25, [2008] 1 AC 962	Distinguished civil law self-defence requiring both honest and objectively reasonable belief from criminal law's subjective test.	The court relied on this to reject the argument that the civil law test should apply at inquest and that objective reasonableness is required for lawful killing.
Jordan v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 2	Article 2 requires an effective investigation capable of identifying and punishing unlawful use of force.	The court used this to assess the adequacy of the inquest as fulfilling procedural obligations under Article 2.
McCann v United Kingdom [1996] 21 EHRR 97	Use of force by state agents may be justified under Article 2 where based on an honest belief perceived as valid at the time, even if mistaken.	The court confirmed that subjective honest belief suffices for lawful killing under Article 2.
Da Silva v United Kingdom [2016] 63 EHRR 12	Confirmed that for Article 2 lawful killing, the subjective honest belief test applies; reasonableness is a relevant factor but not a separate requirement.	The court relied heavily on this decision to reject the appellant's argument for an objective reasonableness requirement and to uphold the coroner's directions.
R v Palmer [1971] AC 814	Self-defence is a straightforward concept; juries require no complex directions beyond clear exposition of necessary self-defence.	Supported the court's view that detailed directions on reasonableness of belief are not mandatory in every case.
Beckford v The Queen [1988] AC 130	Juries should assess the genuineness of belief in self-defence against surrounding circumstances.	The court cited this to affirm that the jury's evaluation of honesty includes consideration of evidence bearing on reasonableness.
R v Keane and McGrath (2010) EWCA Crim 2514	Section 76 CJIA does not require complicated jury directions; law of self-defence is common sense.	Used to support the position that the coroner's directions were appropriate and not legally deficient.
R v Yaman [2012] EWCA Crim 1075	Confirmed that specific directions on reasonableness of belief are not required in every criminal trial involving self-defence.	Supported the court's view that no mandatory direction on reasonableness was required at the inquest.
Petrov v Bulgaria (63106/00) 10 June 2010	Criticism of inadequate investigation into police shooting where officers had no reason to believe the deceased was dangerous.	Cited to emphasize the importance of effective investigation under Article 2 but distinguished from the facts of this case.
Nachova v Bulgaria (2006) 42 EHRR 43	Effective investigation must be capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible for unlawful use of force.	Used to reinforce the procedural standards required under Article 2.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the legal framework governing self-defence in both criminal and civil law, as well as the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It noted that the criminal law test for self-defence requires only an honest belief, even if mistaken, in the necessity of force, whereas civil law requires that the belief be both honest and objectively reasonable.

The court found no legislative or ECHR jurisprudence mandating that in every inquest where self-defence is raised, the jury must be directed explicitly on the relevance of the reasonableness of the belief to the honesty and genuineness of that belief. It emphasized that the jury was properly directed on the criminal law test, which is well-established and widely understood, and that the coroner's directions were consistent with common practice and legal precedent.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the inquest should apply the civil law test or consider civil liability, explaining that the inquest's role is not to determine civil liability but to investigate the facts and circumstances of death. It also highlighted that requiring dual standards would cause confusion and is not supported by the law.

Regarding the procedural obligations under Article 2, the court held that the inquest was effective and thorough, capable of identifying whether the use of force was justified, and that the jury's findings were based on proper directions and evidence. The court noted that the appellant's new argument concerning the absence of a direction on reasonableness was not raised before the Divisional Court, but granted permission to appeal on this ground, ultimately dismissing it on the merits.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal.

The court upheld the Divisional Court's decision dismissing the appellant's claim for judicial review. It confirmed that the coroner's directions to the jury on lawful self-defence were adequate and consistent with the criminal law test and Article 2 requirements. The court rejected the submission that the civil law test for self-defence should apply or that the inquest should consider civil liability. The decision affirms the established legal framework for inquests involving deaths caused by state agents and clarifies that the procedural obligations under Article 2 do not require directions on the objective reasonableness of belief in self-defence or an inquiry into civil liability.