0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

R (Sacker) v West Yorkshire Coroner, House of Lords, 11 March 2004

18 March 2004
The issues

Coroner – State’s duty to investigate death – Human Rights Act 1982 Article 2.

The facts

The mother of the deceased, Helen Sacker applied for permission to proceed with her claim for a judicial review of the Coroner’s refusal to leave to the Inquest Jury the issue of whether her daughter’s suicide while on remand in prison was contributed to by neglect. The Claimant alleged that the Prison Authorities knew that she was a suicide risk but failed to take any preventative measures. At the Inquest, the Coroner had directed the Jury to identify only the issues of who the deceased was and how, when and where she came by her death and that they were not to frame their verdict so as to appear to decide any question of criminal liability or civil liability. The Coroner further stated that under Rule 43 Coroner’s Rules, he would report certain matters relating to the way in which the deceased had been treated in Prison to the appropriate authorities. The Court of Appeal had allowed the Appeal by the deceased’s mother. The West Yorkshire Coroner appealed against that decision to the House of Lords.

The decision

Following the decision in Middleton, the word “how” in Section 11 of the Coroner’s Act 1988 should be given and Rule 36(i)(b) of the Coroner’s Rules 1984 should be given a broader meaning “by what means and in what circumstances”. The consequence was that the Coroner would be able to exercise his discretion. The Coroner here exercised his discretion in the way indicated in the Middleton case. The Inquest had been deprived of its ability to address the positive obligation that Article 2 of the convention placed on steps to take effective operational measures to safeguard life. The appropriate course was to order a new Inquest.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up