COVID-19 EXPERT LEGAL INSIGHTS

The inquest process during COVID-19 restrictions

15 May 2020

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.

Impacts of Legal Amendments and Updated Guidance

The Coronavirus Act 2020 has a relatively short section dealing with inquests in England and Wales. It clarifies that COVID-19 is not to be considered a “notifiable disease” for the purposes of section 7(2)(c) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This means that most COVID-19 related deaths will not require coroners to hold a jury inquest. Further clarification about the extent to which coroners should be investigating deaths arising from COVID-19 has been provided in a guidance note produced by the Chief Coroner, which states that the “vast majority of deaths from COVID-19… will not be referred to the coroner”. There is further guidance about the scope of coronial investigations into COVID-19 deaths in the rare cases when an inquest is required.

The Government guidance on social distancing will be having a much wider ranging and immediate impact on inquests. The Chief Coroner has adopted the Lord Chief Justice’s position that no physical hearing should take place unless it is urgent and essential business, and that it is safe for those involved for the hearing to take place. Individual coroners will have discretion to decide which hearings might fall into that category.  The Chief Coroner has asked for hearings to take place remotely wherever possible, and only if suitable arrangements can be made to ensure social distancing.

As matters stand, the Chief Coroner’s view is that the coroner in any hearing (remote or otherwise) will have to be present in court, even if the other parties are not. This view is based on Rule 11 in the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013, which requires inquest and pre-inquest hearings to Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 to be held in public. Unless a coroner is present at Court, the Chief Coroner’s view is that this section cannot be complied with. The position may evolve over time. Rule 11(5) allows for the public to be excluded from pre-inquest hearings in the interests of justice.  The Coronavirus Act 2020 contemplates the Court of Appeal, the High Court, Crown Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, County Courts, Family Courts, and chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals being able to conduct hearings by video and audio link in public by broadcasting them. It also contemplates coroners’ inquests in Northern Ireland being carried out in the same manner. It would be strange if the inquests in England and Wales were left as outliers.

Resourcing

The Chief Coroner’s guidance envisages resourcing issues both within and without the coronial system impacting on inquest proceedings. A coroner’s duties extend beyond conducting inquest proceedings and their workload will be increased by any period of increased mortality. This increase in workload is very likely to be coupled with a downturn in staff numbers as coroners, coroner’s officers and support staff find themselves unable to work because of illness, social distancing or self-isolation guidance. The Chief Coroner has sought to reduce the impact of this by:

  • Encouraging Senior Coroners to plan with their local authority and police area, and consider requesting the deployment of additional resource to their local coroner’s office.
  • Encouraging coroners to share staff, facilities and accommodation with neighbouring Coroner Areas.
  • Encouraging Senior Coroners to liaise with the Courts and Tribunals’ Service about shared proceedings.
  • Temporarily consenting to the appointment of assistant coroners by local authorities without open competition.
  • Urgently pursuing a number of avenues to try to widen the pool of assistant coroners who may be available.

Even with these measures, disruption and delay of inquest proceedings is inevitable. The Chief Coroner suggests that coroners should consider adjourning inquests, especially those which are likely to occupy significant time and judicial / staff effort.

The nature of inquests means that they are more reliant than other proceedings on medical expertise, and more likely to involve an investigation of conduct in a medical setting. The very substantial strain that COVID-19 is placing on the healthcare system is going to significantly reduce the availability of such expertise to coroners, and is likely to prevent medical organisations and their staff from participating in inquests. The Chief Coroner has acknowledged the demands on pathologists, and has also suggested that coroners grant or invite extensions to any healthcare organisations required to provide evidence. He has asked coroners to recognise the “primary clinical commitments” of medical professionals.

Variation between Coroner Areas

Each Coroner Area in England is resourced by the relevant local authority. Their courts are not run by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal’s service like other courts in the jurisdiction. This means that the impact of COVID-19 will vary between the Coroner Areas. Factors that are likely to affect a Coroner Area’s response will include:

  • The financial resources the local authority commits to the Coroner’s Office;
  • The availability of technology to facilitate remote working and hearings;
  • The opinion of the Senior Coroner on the interpretation of the Chief Coroner’s Guidance and the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013;
  • The extent of the impact of COVID-19 on the local healthcare system.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 crisis has affected all sectors of the justice system. The coronial system is particularly vulnerable to disruption because of the increased burden placed on coroners and their staff by the pandemic, the inevitable reduction in resources available to coroners, and the role in the inquest process of medical expertise and evidence. The Chief Coroner’s view on the required format for remote hearings is likely to restrict the number that go ahead. Any extant or new inquests are likely to face significant delays especially those which are resource heavy, require input from those in the healthcare sector, or are assigned to Coroner Areas that have been seen high rates of COVID-19 infection.  

Further information

Should you have any questions about any of the issues covered in this blog, please contact Fred Allen or contact any member of our public law team.

About the author

Fred Allen is an associate within the Public Law Department and International Crime Group. He has worked on a range of public law challenges and matters including public inquiries, inquests, judicial review proceedings and tribunal appeals.

 

 

Latest blogs & news

Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccinations for Care Home Workers

This week, the Government announced that Covid-19 vaccinations will be made compulsory for care home staff, raising strong emotions on both sides of the argument.

Coaching, Teaching and Support Work in Lockdown: Safeguarding and Data Protection considerations when working with children online

The COVID-19 crisis has forced sports clubs, schools, universities and charities to rapidly change their approaches to coaching, teaching and support work. The regulations on social distancing have forced organisations to innovate; services which had previously been offered mostly or wholly in person were rapidly shifted online during “lockdown 1” and will return online at least for the duration of “lockdown 3”.  If the vaccine rollout has the desired effect there will no doubt be some return to “traditional” methods, but it seems very unlikely that the changes brought about by the pandemic will be completely reversed.  In this blog, Claire Parry from Kingsley Napley’s Regulatory team and Fred Allen from the Public Law team look at the challenges organisations face engaging with children online.

Regulation and Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccine

The government has now approved the supply of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. The reason they have been able to do this so quickly is because they have taken advantage of the temporary authorisation regime laid out by the Human Medicine Regulations of 2012 and 2020. The 2012 Regulations were updated in 2020 specifically to facilitate the smooth rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. In the public consultation preceding the introduction of these updated regulations, several respondents raised concerns regarding unlicensed vaccines and immunity from civil liability. In practice, very little is known about these regulations and their application. This article seeks to shed some light on the temporary authorisation regime and suggest a means of alleviating concerns in the context of “vaccine hesitancy”.

Parliamentary scrutiny in the time of Coronavirus

As a new nationwide lockdown comes into effect, Stephen Parkinson and Charlie Roe from our Public Law team, consider the often limited role of Parliament in scrutinising restrictive regulations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

The inquest process during COVID-19 restrictions

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.

The future public inquiry into COVID-19

The devastation wrought by COVID-19 has led to profound questions about the UK government’s response to the pandemic. Calls for a public inquiry are continuing to mount and are likely to prove difficult to resist. This blog considers the framework for such inquiries, and the key issues likely to form the core of its terms of reference.

COVID-19 and contact tracing apps: A test of public confidence in data privacy?

Dominic Raab announced last week that the current UK lockdown would last for at least another three weeks. These restrictions are unlikely to be relaxed until a large scale plan is in place to track and restrict the spread of the virus. Part of this plan will involve the use of the NHS “contact tracing” app, which we have been told is in an advanced stage of development.

Suicide Inquests

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 [2018] 4 W.L.R 106.

What is an 'Article 2 inquest' and why does it matter?

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. 

Coroners to investigate still born deaths

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 [2017] 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) [2017] 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.

COVID-19 related insights:

COVID-19 related insights:

Our COVID-19 statement

We recognise that these unique times are presenting unprecedented challenges for our clients and we are here to support you in any way we can.

Click to view

Can you get out of or suspend a contract because of Coronavirus?

Alex Torpey covers the key things to look out for if you are relying on the Force Majeure clause.

Watch the video on LinkedIn

Overcoming the challenges of co-parenting for separated and divorced parents

Rachel Freeman, Partner in our Family Law team, addresses some issues that we are seeing arise for separated parents in the current crisis.

Read the blog

Tech in Two Minutes - Episode 7 - The Coronavirus challenge for tech coworking spaces

Andrew Solomon speaks about the challenge for tech companies and coworking spaces during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Listen to the podcast

The legal basis for lockdown

Alun Milford, Partner in our Criminal Litigation team, provides an in-depth look at the legal basis behind the current lockdown.

Read the blog

Managing your Migrant workforce in the COVID-19 crisis

On Friday 3 April, immigration partner and head of department, Nick Rollason, hosted a webinar looking at urgent issues employers are facing during the COVID-19 crisis and answered some of the key questions being raised.

Watch the webinar recording

Furlough leave and the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: key legal considerations for Employers

On Thursday 9 April, Andreas White, Partner in our Employment Law Team, delivered an overview of the scheme with a focus of the key legal issues for UK employers.

Watch the webinar recording

Coronavirus and the perils of signing your Will

Will instructions have apparently risen by 30% since COVID-19 reached our shores. What effect does COVID-19 have on Will signings? James Ward and Diva Shah in our Private Client team blog.

Read the blog

The juggling act of a single mother, home school teacher and head of a family team

Charlotte Bradley, Head of our Family Law Team, reflects on how the COVID-19 crisis has affected working parents like her.

Read the blog

The future public inquiry into COVID-19

Calls for a public inquiry are continuing to mount and are likely to prove difficult to resist. In this blog, Sophie Kemp considers the framework for such inquiries, and the key issues likely to form the core of its terms of reference.

Read the blog

Share insightLinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email to a friend Print

Email this page to a friend

We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.

Leave a comment

Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility