Law Weblog

R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner and another [2004] HL

Sunday 21 March 2004 at 1:43 am | In News | Post Comment

[Juries – coroners’ juries must give reasons for verdicts]
Colin Middleton aged 31 died at Bristol Prison. A jury and the coroner both felt that there were “significant deficiencies” in the care given by the Prison Service, who was not placed on suicide watch despite signs of possible self-harm. The Coroner was passed a note by the jury which raised a number of their concerns about the practices adopted by the prison authorities. The family’s lawyers later asked for the jury’s note to be incorporated into the verdict, which was otherwise to be recorded simply as the taking of his own life while the balance of his mind was disturbed.

Held: A jury’s remit to decide the question of “how” a prisoner died under the Coroners Act 1988 should be extended to “by what means and in what circumstances” if the jurors wished to express concern about the circumstances of a death. That might be done by inviting a form of verdict expanded beyond those suggested in the model form; or by inviting a narrative form of verdict in which the jury’s factual conclusions were briefly summarised; or by inviting the jury’s answer to factual questions put by the coroner. It would be open to parties to make submissions to the coroner on the means of eliciting the jury’s factual conclusions and on any questions to be put, but the choice had to be the coroner’s and the courts should not disturb his decision unless strong grounds were shown. Acts or omissions might be recorded, but expressions suggestive of civil liability, in particular “neglect” or “carelessness” and related expressions, were to be avoided. Self-neglect and neglect should continue to be treated as terms of art.

It is believed that this is the first case about the role of the Coroners’ Court to come before the House of Lords in 100 years. The campaigning group Inquest described it as “a major breakthrough”.