As we discussed in our recent blog, some inquests will automatically be designated ‘Article 2 inquests’ if the deceased died whilst under the control of the state. Other inquests will only become Article 2 inquests if there is evidence of systemic failures of processes and systems to protect life. Therefore, a case of ordinary medical negligence would not trigger Article 2, as confirmed in Parkinson  4 W.L.R 106.
What about the death, following allegedly negligent medical care, of someone with learning disabilities who is unable to leave her locked care home without supervision?
This is the question recently considered by a Divisional Court  EWHC 1232 (Admin) and whilst the court decided to affirm Parkinson, and treat this case as one of (arguably) ordinary medical negligence, it has apparently raised the possibility of deaths in similar circumstance leading to an Article 2 inquest.
Jackie Maguire, a 52 year old lady with Down’s syndrome, tragically died in hospital of a perforated ulcer on 22 February 2017. At a pre-inquest review hearing on 21 December 2017, before the Parkinson decision, the Coroner ruled that Article 2 was engaged.
An inquest with a jury took place between 20 and 29 June 2018, a few days after the judgement in Parkinson was handed down.
At the inquest, the Coroner and jury heard that Ms Maguire had been living in a care home run by a charity since 1993 and had been deprived of her liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. In the week prior to Ms Maguire’s death she had been unwell. On 20 February 2017 she asked to see a GP but this was not arranged. On 21 February 2017 following a “possible collapsing episode”, one of Ms Maguire’s carers called the GP practice and was told a visit would be considered.
The carer called the GP practice again to report further symptoms and then tried the NHS out of hours service and was advised to contact the GP. At 4.59pm Ms Maguire’s GP called, spoke to a carer, and made a prescription. At 7.10pm a carer called the out of hours service again and at 7.48pm an ambulance was called by that service. The two person crew arrived at 8pm, unaware that Ms Maguire had learning disabilities. Ms Maguire refused to go in the ambulance and the paramedics were unable to persuade her, unqualified to sedate her and unwilling to use physical restraint. A paramedic spoke to an out of hours GP at around 8.30pm, this GP advised against using physical force. In the morning of 22 February 2017 Ms Maguire collapsed and was taken to hospital by ambulance where she tragically died in the evening.
The Article 2 decision
Before summing up to the jury, in light of the decision in Parkinson the Coroner ruled that the allegations of (arguable) negligence against Ms Maguire’s carers and the healthcare providers constituted individual failings which fell outside Article 2 territory.
The decision that Article 2 was not engaged was the subject of the judicial review brought by Ms Maguire’s mother, Mrs Muriel Maguire in addition to the Coroner’s decision not to leave neglect to the jury (which we do not consider here).
The judicial review
The High Court reviewed the available case law of the ECtHR and identified two principles which govern whether or not Article 2 is engaged in an inquest:
1) In the absence of systemic or regulatory dysfunction, Article 2 may be engaged by an individual's death if the state had assumed responsibility for the individual's welfare or safety.
2) In deciding whether the state has assumed responsibility for an individual's safety, the court will consider how close was the state's control over the individual.
The Court confirmed that the case of Parkinson is now authority for the proposition that a medical case (in which negligent medical treatment may incur liability in tort) will not generally engage Article 2.
Applying this case law to the death in question, the Court considered that the events leading up to Ms Maguire’s death were only capable of representing individual failings, not systemic ones. And as to the question of state responsibility for Ms Maguire in the care home, Ms Maguire was deprived of her liberty under the Mental Capacity Act and this on its own is insufficient to trigger Article 2 engagement.
Might this change in the future?
On the surface, this is an uncontroversial judgement but it does quietly raise the possibility of a different coroner finding that Article 2 was engaged in a similar set of circumstances:
Where the state has assumed some degree of responsibility for the welfare of an individual who is subject to DOLS but not imprisoned or placed in detention, the line between state responsibility (for which it should be called to account) and individual actions will sometimes be a fine one.
The concept of ‘state detention’ was not explored in relation to this specific case because it was accepted that Ms Maguire was simply subject to deprivation of liberty (DOLS) which does not in itself mean that someone is detained by the state. However, in our view it is hard to reconcile this blanket approach with the ‘two principles’ which the Court in this judgment identified. To put it another way – someone in a similar situation to Ms Maguire could well be considered to be ‘under state control’ and so, as the judgement states, these cases will turn on the facts and fall to coroners to be decided.
In addition to this potential ‘grey area’, and possibly adding pressure on coroners to consider Article 2 engagement further, there is also the potential for evidence relating to the premature deaths of people with learning disabilities (see for example the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme’s 2018 Report) to be used to argue that there are systemic failings by the state in circumstances such as this. Counsel for Ms Maguire’s mother included such evidence in her submissions but it was (properly) not considered because it had not been before the Coroner.
Public Law Team
Latest blogs & news
Inquest proceedings, like other legal proceedings in the UK, have been significantly affected by social distancing restrictions and advice arising from the COVID-19 crisis. This blog looks briefly at the impact of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on proceedings, and examines the Chief Coroner’s guidance notes to coroners working during the crisis.
Inquests are always very sad affairs, and when the court is considering a suicide, it is particularly difficult for the loved ones of the person who has died.
London Climate Action Week: Cutting through the London smog - the big question still to be answered about the death of Ella-Kissi Debrah
At the end of the inquest in 2014 into the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the coroner concluded that this nine year old girl suffered an asthma attack, followed by a seizure, and died after unsuccessful resuscitation. This is one possible answer to the question of how Ella died. However, there is clearly a bigger question which needs to be answered.
The grey area between Article 2 and ordinary medical negligence? The High Court considers Parkinson and the deaths of vulnerable people in care homes
As we discussed in our recent blog, some inquests will automatically be designated ‘Article 2 inquests’ if the deceased died whilst under the control of the state. Other inquests will only become Article 2 inquests if there is evidence of systemic failures of processes and systems to protect life. Therefore a case of ordinary medical negligence would not trigger Article 2, as confirmed in Parkinson  4 W.L.R 106.
In June 2018 the government announced that some bereaved families should find it easier to access legal aid funding for representation at inquests. The updated guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor allows caseworkers to waive the financial means test “for cases where the state has a procedural obligation to hold an inquest under Article 2”.
Over £450,000 for the state and £0 for PC Palmer’s family at the Westminster Bridge Inquest - how the inequality of arms at inquests looks set to continue
In February 2019 in its Final Report on the Review of Legal Aid for Inquests, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that it would not be introducing automatic public funding for families at inquests where the state is legally represented. This is hugely disappointing news for families, such as the family of PC Palmer, who have experienced the reality of an inquest where the state has the benefit of a highly experienced and well-resourced legal team while they are left to try and find lawyers prepared to represent them for free.
The High Court’s decision is (sometimes) final: the Court of Appeal confirms the decision of a coroner in relation to witnesses and the risk of harm caused by giving evidence
The husband and children of the school teacher, Ann Maguire, who was murdered by a pupil, William Cornick, in her classroom in April 2014 have been unsuccessful in their attempt to appeal against the decision of the High Court to dismiss their claim for judicial review of a decision of the Assistant District Coroner for West Yorkshire.
Today, the Health Secretary announced “a new maternity strategy to reduce the number of stillbirths. This strategy centres on the investigation of still birth deaths by the new Healthcare Safety Investigations Branch but it also included a planned change in the law to allow coroners to investigate full term still birth deaths. Currently there is no requirement for a doctor to refer a still birth death to the local coroner.
Legal update: When an inquest is still necessary after criminal proceedings in order to comply with Article 2
In the recently reported case of R (Silvera) v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire  EWHC 2499 (Admin), the Divisional Court looked at the investigative duties placed on the state by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the importance of the coronial process in ensuring that those duties have been met.
The Coroner’s decision is (almost always) final: the Court’s approach to judicial review of inquest proceedings
The recent decision of Mr Justice Holroyde in R oao Donald Maguire and ors v The Assistant Coroner for West Yorkshire (Eastern Area)  EWHC 2039 provides a salutary reminder of just how difficult it is successfully to judicially review the ‘case management’ decisions of a coroner – in this case a decision as to which witnesses to call at an inquest – and of the costs risks of bringing such a challenge.