Applications for a fresh inquest

Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 deals with applications for a fresh inquest and states that the High Court must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable in the interest of justice that an investigation should be held because of reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry or the discovery of new facts or evidence.

Famously, the Hillsborough inquest conducted in 1989 was quashed and a new inquest was ordered as a result of fresh evidence. The issue was whether the interests of justice made a further inquest desirable or necessary. It was suggested that the emergence of fresh evidence which may reasonably lead to the conclusion that the substantial truth about how an individual met his death was not revealed at the first inquest would normally make it both desirable and necessary in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be ordered. In this case, the Hillsborough Independent Panel published a report after completing a mammoth task of reviewing all documentation relating to the disaster which greatly assisted the application for a fresh inquest. It was held that a new inquest should be ordered in light of a number of features of the evidence which cast new light on the circumstances in which the deceased came to their deaths.

More recently, on 22 October 2024, the High Court in HM Senior Coroner for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles v Elaine Rowe, Helen Price, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust [2024] EWHC 2673 (Admin), held that it was both necessary and desirable in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to take place due to the discovery of new facts and evidence in a conjoined application. This matter involved the deaths of two people who died whilst a patient of the vascular surgery unit at the Royal Cornwall Hospital. The inquests being held in 2017 and 2013 respectively. The fresh evidence available related to an invited service review of the vascular surgery unit carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons and this included concerns about the work of one particular vascular surgeon. This review identified serious patient safety concerns and a need for improvement in multi-disciplinary processes at the hospital. The fresh evidence that was now available, raised the possibility that the death of each of the deceased was contributed to by acts or omissions of the surgeon detailed in the report.

It should be noted however, that the mere existence of fresh evidence is not, in itself, sufficient enough to justify a fresh inquest.

In the case of His Majesty's Senior Coroner for Northamptonshire v Nick and Diana Lovell Ian, Sarah Teague [2024] EWHC 2331 (Admin), the two deceased came about their death during a road traffic collision. The inquests were not heard together, and the courts suggested that if they had been, as they should, the application may not have arisen.

In the first inquest to the death of the passenger of the car, the coroner noted in her conclusion that the driver had a ‘significant amount of alcohol in his blood’. In the subsequent inquest of the driver, more detailed toxicology evidence cast doubt on this previous indication. It was explained by the expert that alcohol can be produced by the body post-mortem, but it was possible that some or even all of the alcohol present at the time of testing had been produced post-mortem.

In this case, the courts looked to the judgment of the Hillsborough case for guidance on whether to request a fresh inquest. On balance, the courts did not consider a fresh investigation to be necessary on the facts. It was noted that a fresh investigation would only correct a non-causative matter and only result in a different conclusion in the passenger’s case in a very narrow respect to include the addition of the words ‘at the time of testing’.

Although it is not necessary in statute to show that it is probable that the discovery of the fresh evidence would lead to different findings, it is arguable that the courts require to be satisfied of this to establish that it is both necessary and desirable in the interests of justice that another investigation should be held.

Forbes Comment:

The emergence of new evidence alone is not sufficient for the High Court to order a fresh inquest investigation.   The cliché of each case has to be determined on its own facts is equally important in determining any application.  The test of whether it was desirable in the interest of justice and was therefore desirable and necessary is a high threshold.  Any new evidence would have to be causative to show that on the coroner’s findings at a fresh investigation would differ from the original inquest.