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

changes to the standard of proof for findings of unlawful killing in inquests

18 November 2020

The Supreme Court in the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire has considered whether the applicable standard of proof in inquest proceedings should be to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) or the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities). The focus in this case was the determination of suicide, but the judgment also applies to the determination of an unlawful killing.

The Supreme Court determined by a majority of 3-2 that the standard of proof for all short form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing should be the civil standard. Lady Arden supported by two other Lords held that the previous case law was not binding on the Supreme Court and did not identify a good enough reason against applying the civil standard. She was of the view that this decision would effectively lead to consistency between determinations made at an inquest.

This sees a departure from previous case law and the Coroner’s Inquests Rules 2013, which explained that the standard of proof in short form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing was the criminal standard and that for all other conclusions the civil standard applied. Of course, this meant that a narrative conclusion could be reached on the balance of probabilities which could in effect be construed as suicide or unlawful killing, albeit phrased differently.

This judgment however means that a coroner or jury need not be sure on the evidence that a person took their own life having intended to do so or that a person has been killed without lawful excuse and in breach of the law before reaching a conclusion of suicide or unlawful killing and without having to resort to penning a narrative conclusion.

The conclusion of unlawful killing does not extend to the criminal offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving and it does not extend to Health and Safety Act offences where death results. No reference should be made in an inquest to any of these offences or the elements of the offences.

However, an unlawful killing conclusion could be found if the coroner or a jury are satisfied that it is more likely than not that death was as a result of corporate manslaughter. Namely, that the way in which the organisation’s activities are managed or organised causes a person’s death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed to the deceased.

This therefore could potentially have a bigger impact on the regulatory and criminal landscape as more police investigations could be re-opened or triggered by unlawful killing conclusions in the Coroner’s Courts. Depending upon the evidence found as a result of police enquiries, this could then see a new or re-opened HSE enquiry.

The impact of this decision highlights that clients who become interested parties and who are faced with this conclusion in an inquest will need to properly consider, at the outset of instructing their solicitors, issues relating to disclosure, witnesses, the application of Article 2, the scope of the inquiry, the terms of reference and whether a jury is required. This will require a substantial amount of work to be undertaken before the case goes to the coroner which supports their stance on those issues.

Clients will also need to consider whether they want to intensify their legal arguments on whether a jury can safely reach those conclusions and be prepared to be involved and assist in what can be a lengthy and difficult process.

related opinions

Updated National Crime Agency (NCA) guidance: Shoot for better quality suspicious activity reports (SARs)

The National Crime Agency (NCA) published an updated guidance note for anti-money laundering supervisors targeted at improving the quality of suspicious activity reports (SARs) to make the best possible use of SARs and to minimise unnecessary delays, particularly where a defence against money laundering (DAML) has been sought.

View blog

Sports associations and clubs – keeping children safe from sexual abuse – Lessons learned from the Sheldon report

On 17 March 2020 a report by Clive Sheldon QC was published. He had been appointed by the FA back in December 2016 to carry out an independent review into allegations of sexual abuse by coaches and scouts working in youth football between 1970 and 2005.

View blog

Impact of Covid-19 upon level of fine

Two cases have considered the issue of Covid 19 as part of the sentencing exercise. In the most recent, failures by a principal contractor Modus Workspace, who design and refit refurbishments, led to a £1.1 million fine after an engineer was injured from a fall from a roof.

View blog

Chancellor announces levy on companies subject to anti-money laundering regulations

The Chancellor’s latest Budget Report outlined that the Government will introduce a £100 million Economic Crime Levy, otherwise known as the AML Levy no earlier than April 2022 to fund action to tackle money laundering and ensure delivery of reforms in the Government’s Economic Crime Plan.

View blog

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up