Search Hill Dickinson

Dove v Assistant Coroner for Teesside [2023] EWCA Civ 289

Dove v Assistant Coroner for Teesside [2023] EWCA Civ 289

The Court of Appeal recently ruled upon this application for a fresh inquest, in circumstances where the deceased’s benefits had been removed shortly before she took her own life. The judgment is of interest as to the extent to which coroners are required to answer the question of ‘why’ in an inquest.

Background

Jodey Whiting died from a self-inflicted death in the community aged 42. Ms Whiting had been in receipt of welfare benefits from the  Department of Work of Pensions (DWP) and these benefits were withdrawn in the weeks prior to her death.

At the initial inquest into her death, the coroner’s decision was that the DWP’s removal of Ms Whiting’s welfare benefits fell outside the scope of the inquest. The coroner delivered a short-form conclusion of ‘suicide’.

Ms Whiting’s family obtained two fresh pieces of evidence further to the conclusion of the inquest:

  1. An Independent Case Examiner report which identified numerous failings in relation to the DWP. In this report, the DWP accepted the recognised failings.
  2. A report from an independent psychiatrist which concluded that there was a causal link between the DWP’s failings and Ms Whiting’s declining mental health before her death.

The appeal

As a result of this additional evidence, Ms Whiting’s family applied for a new inquest to be held. The Divisional Court (High Court) refused. The family subsequently appealed this decision on two grounds:

  1. That because of the fresh evidence, it was in the interests of justice to order a new non-Article 2 (Jamieson) inquest.
  2. Further and alternatively, that it was in the interests of justice to order a new Article 2 (Middleton) inquest.

Ms Whiting’s family (the Appellant) was successful on the first ground, but not on the second.  

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court had erred in trying to draw a sharp distinction between Ms Whiting’s state of mind in the weeks leading up to her death and her eventual death itself. It was held that the Divisional Court adopted an incorrect approach when considering causation; it was wrong to have approached causation based on whether the death would have occurred ‘but for’ the stopping of benefits.

The Court of Appeal restated that the test for causation in inquests is a far broader concept, which encompasses acts or omissions which more than minimally, negligibly, or trivially contributed to the death.  For this reason, in cases of suicide, it is open to a coroner to consider the extent to which an act or omission contributed to the decline in the person’s mental health which led them to take their own life. 

Lord Justices Whipple and Lewis opined that whilst it was not necessary to hold a fresh inquest, when examining the facts of this case, it was desirable. It would enable Ms Whiting’s family to invite the coroner to find that the DWP’s abrupt removal of welfare benefits contributed to Ms Whiting’s mental health decline and could also enable this finding to be formally recognised on the Record of Inquest.

However, in relation to the application for an Article 2-compliant inquest to be held, the Court of Appeal found that the DWP did not owe an operational duty to protect Ms Whiting’s life for the purposes of Article 2. This was on the basis that the DWP did not know, and should not have known, that there was a real and immediate risk of Ms Whiting taking her own life by suicide.

Comment

The statutory questions that must be answered by a coroner in every inquest are: who the deceased person was, when and where they died. It is not generally considered in a non-Article 2 inquest to be necessary to consider ‘why’ a person died. This judgment suggests a greater exploration of the question of ‘why’ than many would expect to be required. However, the judgment should be taken within the context of specific evidence being available (since the conclusion of the original inquest) in relation to failings on the part of a state body that could be considered to be causative of Ms Whiting’s death.

It is far less likely to be considered necessary for coroners to consider the question of ‘why’ where the reason for someone taking their life is a private matter such as infidelity. However, for state organisations, this case is an important reminder that actions or omissions on their part will be carefully considered in the course of an inquest, even where Article 2 is not engaged.

For further information and support, please get in touch.

Inquests

Specialist inquest law solicitors for the NHS and Independent Health and Social Care sectors

Consult our health lawyers for professional support within inquest law

Complicated inquests can arise within the NHS, Independent Health and Social Care sectors. They can be high-profile occasions, raising potential issues that require careful handling and robust legal advice with no room for error. Our healthcare solicitors are inquest specialists and an integral part of our service to health and social care organisations.

Consult the help of our team and benefit from expert advice on all matters relating to the coroners’ jurisdiction and inquests. We have decades of experience that we can begin sharing with you today.

How we can advise you

Our areas of expertise include:

  • dealing with the coroners’ requests for disclosure of documentary evidence, witness summonses and attending the pre-inquest review.
  • supporting our clients and their staff through the Inquest process.
  • advising on the inter-relationship between the Police / Health and Safety Executive (HSE) / Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) investigations following a death and a coroner’s investigation, including advice on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
  • advising on duty of candour and patient safety implications.
  • reviewing / undertaking internal investigations and devising recommendations and action plans.
  • obtaining external reviews.
  • collaborating with the NHS Resolution in appropriate cases to ensure a joined up approach to litigated claims and complaints.
  • advising witnesses of their rights in relation to attending an Inquest to give oral evidence and self‑incrimination.
  • The Human Tissue Act 2005 and post-mortem examinations.
  • advocacy at coroners’ Inquests, including Article 2 and Jury Inquests and against Counsel, as a number of our specialist lawyers have Higher Rights of Audience.
  • dealing with complex Article 2 Inquests, including those involving allegations of gross negligence, manslaughter, neglect and system neglect.
  • drafting lesson learning statements and arguing against and, if necessary, advising on an appropriate response to a report issued by a coroner requesting details of actions that have or will be taken to prevent further deaths in similar circumstances.
  • judicial review of coroners’ decisions.
  • the release of a body for burial or cremation generally or on religious grounds and the retention of organs.
  • dealing with the media.
  • training in all aspects of coronial law, including corporate manslaughter and practical tips on writing statements for the coroner and giving evidence in Court.