In Suspicious Circumstances

Product Information

Where the coroner insists that a prosecutor needs to comply with the summons request, a prosecutor should consider applying to have the summons set aside formally. Prosecutors should make an application to the coroner under Paragraph 1(4) Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Article 2 inquests

In R v Wheatley[1979] 1 WLR 144 it was held that “explosive” for the purposes of the 1883 Act should be construed in light of the meaning provided for by section 3 of the Explosives Act 1875:This approach reduces the number of cases which may eventually lead to a verdict of unlawful killing in a coroner’s court although some notable exceptions include: whether the explosives were handled and stored responsibly and with care or whether their storage was hazardous

For further information on contempt, prosecutors should refer to legal guidance on Contempt of Court and Reporting Restrictions. Other proceedings Jamieson' and 'Middleton' inquests as they are sometimes known, consider neglect on the part on of an individual, and system neglect, under Article 2, respectively. Jamieson inquests Coroners may request updates on the progress of a case, and there should generally be no obstacle preventing the prosecutor providing an update. Coroners most commonly seek a legal explanation of a CPS charging decision made or question its premise, and as a result ask to see a copy of the MG3. As legal guidance on Disclosure of Material to Third Parties cites, the MG3 should not be routinely disclosed; however, information may be extracted to provide the Coroner with further details where required. Prosecutors should refer to the legal guidance on Disclosure of Material to Third Parties for further information. So, if you’re handling your phone while the engine is running, you’re technically using your phone while operating a car.

The Salmon Act 1986 is a United Kingdom Act of Parliament which outlines legislation that covers legal and illegal matter within the salmon farming and fishing industries. Among the provisions in the Act, it makes it illegal to "handle salmon in suspicious circumstances", [1] which is defined in law as when one believes, or could reasonably believe, that salmon has been illegally fished or that salmon—that has come from an illegal source—has been received, retained, removed, or disposed of. Since Middleton there have been a small number of cases which illustrate other examples of State involvement and will be of interest to prosecutors. In R (on the application of Christine Hurst) v HM Coroner for Northern District of London [2003] EWHC 1721 Admin the deceased was killed by a man known to be violent and potentially mentally ill, and was someone he had given evidence against in eviction proceedings. It was argued the police and local authority could have foreseen the incident and that it was preventable, as both bodies were aware the victim (Hurst) was in danger from his eventual killer (Albert Reid convicted of manslaughter in 2001). Additionally, in Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245, had the authorities done all that was reasonably expected of them, they could have avoided the threat to the life of an individual of which they had, or ought to have had knowledge. In this case the individual was known to the police and education authorities to have been harassing and threatening students and their parents; he went on to kill one of the student's parents and a teacher at the school. Apparently, a five-hour House of Lords debate about the issue in February 1986 decided the wording would protect unwitting people from the then-in-place wider law of “possessing salmon which have been illegally taken, killed or landed”. Read More Related Articles This legal guidance provides prosecutors with information about Coroners and their responsibilities. It also provides operational advice regarding the Agreement between The Crown Prosecution Service, The National Police Chiefs' Council, The Chief Coroner and The Coroners' Society of England and Wales. This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Agreement and supporting tools. What is a Coroner?

There is a common duty upon all citizens to give information which will inform a Coroner of circumstances for when an inquest should be held. It is a common law offence to obstruct a Coroner, whether by disposing of a body before a Coroner can openly inquire into the circumstances of a death or acting to prevent an inquest. What will a Coroner do when a death is reported? Alternative offences, set out below, provide for their own definition of what an “explosive” (or other prohibited article) is. Expert evidence There may be a need for the CPS to appear as a witness/party in an Article 2 inquest, as a result of this involvement. Despite the involvement being of a peripheral nature, prosecutors need to comply with the Coroner's request as directed. Coroners will not normally use neglect or self-neglect to form any part of their conclusion, unless a clear and direct causal link is established between the conduct described, and the cause of death. Middleton inquestsFollowing an inquest the Coroner can make recommendations to prevent future deaths from occurring, previously known as a 'Rule 43 Report' but now known as a 'Preventing Future Deaths Report' or 'PFD Report' (as set out in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. The respondent is given 56 days to reply in writing, giving details of actions that have been taken or proposed to be taken, or an explanation as to why no action will be taken to prevent future similar deaths. Copies of all responses will be sent to the Lord Chancellor, who may publish the response or a summary of it, unless the Coroner has exercised his/her power to request a restriction to the publication to the Chief Coroner (under paragraph 29(10) of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013). Coroners may resume inquests where the State's agents have been involved following criminal proceedings, for example, such as in R (on the application of Middleton) v HM Coroner for Western Somerset [2001] EWHC Admin 1043. The involvement of the State was raised in this case when the inquest jury communicated to the coroner that an agent of the State (in this case, the Prison Service) had failed in its duty of care to the deceased. The deceased had hanged himself in prison, and whilst he had been identified as at risk the proper safeguards were never put in place. We've drawn up a list of 27 laws, some bizarre, others odd and a few surprising which we all might have inadvertently broken at one time or another.

Where there is a suspicion that a criminal act led to the cause of death, the Coroner will open an inquest and must adjourn it until the outcome of any criminal proceedings is finalised ( Para. 1 Schedule 1 CJA 2009). Where criminal charges are being considered for a homicide offence (as defined at Para. 1(6) Schedule 1), further post mortems may take place, which may delay the release of the body to the bereaved family/next of kin (this may be of significance where a body is found and a murder is suspected, but no individual has been arrested on suspicion of the crime). It is for the Coroner to liaise with the bereaved regarding the release of the body, and with the police and CPS where needed if criminal proceedings are being considered. Will the Coroner arrange a second post mortem? cases where the CPS consider the matter but does not consider that the evidence is sufficient to support a charge of unlawful killing/homicide;

Contribute to This Page

The coroner will only resume the investigation (and any inquest where one was adjourned) after the outcome of the criminal proceedings is communicated by the appropriate officer of the court or where the coroner is informed that there is to be no prosecution.