The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment on the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire. This decision has serious implications for NHS organisations, which are considered in more detail below.
The Supreme Court has today delivered its judgment on the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire. By a majority, it has confirmed that the standard of proof required for a conclusion of suicide is the civil standard i.e. “on the balance of probabilities”. The Supreme Court has gone on to extend this to unlawful killing, so that from now on coroners will only have to be satisfied to the civil standard to return an unlawful killing conclusion. This decision has serious implications for NHS organisations, which are considered in more detail below.
The original decision in the Maughan case was surprising. After decades of certainty that a suicide conclusion could only be found if it was “beyond reasonable doubt” that the deceased had acted to take their own life with intent, the court held that the standard of proof for a finding of suicide was actually the lower, civil standard – the balance of probabilities.
In Maughan, the appellant’s brother had died by hanging in his prison cell. Two elements must be established before suicide can be found: it must be shown that the deceased took his own life and that he intended to kill himself. The principle issue at the Maughan inquest was whether the deceased had intended to kill himself. The Coroner instructed the jury to apply the civil standard of proof i.e. on the balance of probabilities. Applying this lower standard of proof, the Jury concluded that the deceased had intended to fatally hang himself.
The appellant then issued a judicial review application, stating that the standard of proof applied at the inquest should have been the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt. The application was dismissed in the High Court and again in the Court of Appeal, who held that “in cases of suicide, the standard of proof to be applied throughout at inquests, and including both short-form conclusions and narrative conclusions, is the civil standard of proof.”
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which has today confirmed that for inquests considering suicide the civil standard of proof applies.
Suicide conclusions will now become more common and it is hoped that this decision will enhance the recording of suicides and assist research for the future. The Supreme Court commented that applying the criminal standard “may lead to suicides being under-recorded and to lessons not being learnt “. The Supreme Court has concluded that lowering the standard of proof is a more satisfactory way of getting accurate figures and explained clearly why this is so important:
“Society needs to understand the causes and to try and prevent suicides occurring. Statistics are the means whereby this can be done. If a criminal burden of proof is required, suicide is likely to be under-recorded. This is especially worrying in the case of state-related deaths. If there is an open verdict because the criminal standard of proof cannot be achieved, the circumstances of the case have to be analysed before it can be included in any statistics to show the true number of suicides. There is a considerable public interest in accurate suicide statistics as they may reveal a need for social and medical care in areas not previously regarded as significant. Each suicide determination can help others by revealing how suicide risks may be managed in future”.
The Court of Appeal had rejected the view that the civil standard also applied to unlawful killing and followed previous precedent which established that the standard of proof for an unlawful killing conclusion was the criminal standard i.e, “beyond reasonable doubt”. Crucially, the Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that the lower civil standard of proof should also be applied to unlawful killing in the Coroner’s Court.
This decision has very serious implications for all NHS organisations. Historically, unlawful killing conclusions have occurred very rarely because the Coroner had to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that the death was due to individual or corporate manslaughter. Going forward, the Coroner will only need to be satisfied of this to the civil standard and therefore it is likely that unlawful killing conclusions will occur more frequently, the consequences of which will be serious for everyone involved.
To read the full judgment of the Supreme Court click here.
This important decision clarifying that the civil standard of proof applies to suicide may have wider implications for the allocation of funding for mental health provision. It is argued that requiring coroners and juries to be sure beyond reasonable doubt has led to underreporting of suicide. It is hoped that this change in the law will give a more accurate picture, which in turn will correspond to greater resource allocation to mental health provision.
In addition, the Supreme Court has overturned established precedent and made it clear that the standard of proof required for an unlawful killing conclusion is reduced to the civil standard i.e. the coroner must only be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the death was due to manslaughter. It is hoped that unlawful killing will remain a rare conclusion but there can be little doubt that it will be more common than it was when the criminal standard applied. It will be crucial for NHS organisations to secure specialist legal representation at inquests where unlawful killing is one of the conclusions that is being considered by the Coroner and if you find yourself in this position please contact our experienced team of inquest advocates who can provide support and specialist legal advice.Co-authored by Nicola Evans and Alexandra Myers.
The BMA is advising all NHS / HSCNI consultants to ensure extra-contractual work is paid at the BMA minimum recommended rate and to decline offers of extra-contractual work that doesn't value them appropriately.
NHS England has published (October 2022) new guidance - Assuring and supporting complex change: Statutory transactions, including mergers and acquisitions.
NHS England has issued an updated (publication 11 October 2022) suite of Complex Change guidance about how it will assure and support proposals for complex change that are reportable to it. New and (where it is still in force) existing Complex Change guidance are as follows.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
Three months on from the commencement of the new statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICS) Anja Beriro and Gerrard Hanratty reflect on the main themes and issues that have come from the new relationship between local government and health.
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
On Saturday 15 October a wave of light swept the internet when thousands of people flooded social media with pictures of candles to remember the babies that they have lost. This event signifies the end of Baby Loss Awareness Week which aims to break the silence that is associated with baby loss in pregnancy and infancy.
The Coronavirus Act 2020 allowed any registered medical practitioner to sign a medical certificate of cause of death (“MCCD”), even if the deceased was not attended to during his or her last illness and not seen after death, provided that the medical practitioner could state the cause of death to the best of their knowledge and belief.
In our latest Shared Insights session, Focus on Emergency Medicine, chaired by Jennifer Fagin and Amelia Newbold, we were pleased to be joined by: Dr Alex Crowe, Deputy Director Incentive Schemes & Academic Partnerships, NHS Resolution and Consultant Nephrologist and Miss Susie Hewitt MBE, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust.