Fresh inquest ordered

Sparrow v HM Coroner for East Somerset [2006] EWHC 2718 (Admin)

Counsel: For the applicant: M Westgate For the first interested party:T Nesbitt

This was an application for an order under s.13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to quash a finding in respect of the death of the deceased, and direct a fresh inquest before a different coroner. The body of the deceased (D) had been found badly burned after there had been a fire in his garage, and the coroner had found that the cause of death had been burning. D had been involved in an extramarital relationship with S, and on the evening of his death he had informed his wife that he wanted a divorce. The coroner had considered three possible verdicts: unlawful killing, suicide and accident, and had concluded that on the balance of probabilities the explanation for D’s death was accident. However, S was not satisfied with the police investigation into D’s death and was also unhappy with the coroner’s verdict. The Police Complaints Authority accepted that there had been weaknesses in the police investigation, and further investigation revealed more witnesses, several of whom thought that D had killed himself, though forensic evidence relating to the circumstances of D’s death could no longer be recovered. S contended that a fresh inquest should be held because the previous inquiry was insufficient, and the new evidence was relevant to the cause of death. It was held that the mere fact that relevant evidence may have been lost as a result of an inadequate police inquiry was not sufficient justification for ordering a fresh inquest. It would not be in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be held in these circumstances unless there was a reasonable prospect that it would make good any inadequacies in the previous inquest. So far as this case was concerned, certain evidence of potential relevance had been lost, but that of itself did not give rise to the requirement for a fresh inquest to be held. However, fresh evidence had come to light since the inquest, and although in the earlier inquest the coroner had made the observation that there was no evidence to support a verdict of unlawful killing and that remained the case, the new evidence did make it more difficult to explain D’s death as an accident. Indeed, it supported the possibility that he might have committed suicide. In these circumstances, it could not be concluded with any certainty that if a fresh inquest was held the coroner would decide that accident was the most likely explanation for D’s death. It would be contrary to justice, as the case had attracted considerable public interest and concern, to leave undisturbed a verdict which had been was based on only part of the relevant evidence, where that evidence might be open to doubt. A fresh inquest before a different coroner was ordered. Accordingly the application was granted.