|
Fiona Paterson appeared at an Inquest for the family of the late Caroline Powell, who was found dead in her cell at HMP Eastwood Park on 5th January 2007. After Caroline’s death, the Prison and Probation Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the events leading to her death. The Ombudsman made five recommendations, four of which were entirely accepted by the prison, the fifth with what the Court of Appeal described as a “realistic qualification.”
Fiona objected to the Coroner’s summing up at the end of the evidence, on the basis that it was not made clear to the jury that they could append a narrative to their verdict if they returned a short form verdict of death by suicide or accident.
The jury returned a verdict of death by accident. No narrative was attached to the verdict despite the jury having heard extensive evidence of various failings on the part of the prison which had lead to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. Fiona sought a judicial review of the Coroner’s summing up and then appeared in the Court of Appeal (lead by Hugh Southey) at the ensuing appeal.
Handing down judgment last week, the Court of Appeal held that “the jury [had been] effectively disabled from fulfilling the purposes referred to by Lord Bingham in Amin (i.e. ‘to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if justified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his death may save the lives of others’).”
The Court also stated that, “there was a public interest in [the jury] being given a clear opportunity to express their findings in narrative form.”
However, the Court of Appeal declined to order a new Inquest on the basis that in order to assess whether the Article 2 obligation had been discharged “it [was] necessary to consider the entirety of the investigative apparatus deployed by the State. This [included] the Ombudsman’s Report which, it [seemed], substantially filled the lacuna left by the limited nature of the jury’s verdict and thereby rendered the totality of the investigative process Article 2 compliant.”
The Queen (on the Application of P) v HM Coroner for the District of Avon [2009] EWCA Civ 1367
|