Challenging the conclusions or findings of coroners’ inquests

Published by a ½Û×ÓÊÓÆµ Corporate Crime expert
Practice notes

Challenging the conclusions or findings of coroners’ inquests

Published by a ½Û×ÓÊÓÆµ Corporate Crime expert

Practice notes
imgtext

As there is no route for a statutory Appeal from the coroner’s court, the supervisory Jurisdiction of the Administrative Court is important for those who wish to challenge the conclusion reached by a coroner or a jury, see below: Challenge by Judicial review. Judicial review is a review of the decision-making process, not an appeal.

Aside from judicial review, the only other way in which a coroner’s conclusion can be challenged is pursuant to section 13(1) of the Coroners Act 1988 (CA 1988), see below: Challenge pursuant to section 13(1) of the Coroners Act 1988.

Challenge by judicial review

The conventional judicial review grounds applicable in the coronial context are, broadly speaking:

  1. •

    procedural impropriety/unfairness

  2. •

    irrationality, (ie in the Wednesbury sense), and

  3. •

    illegality

For more information, see Practice Note: Judicial review—what it is and when it can be used.

There is likely to be some overlap between these grounds in practice. This Practice Note concentrates on some key areas of practice in which attempts to challenge coroners’ Conclusions are made.

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Conclusions definition
What does Conclusions mean?

Conclusions are not covered by the TFEU. Conclusions are non-binding instruments which do not have any legal force but are merely persuasive. They simply allow the EU institutions to make their views known and to suggest a line of action without imposing any legal obligation on those to whom they are addressed.

Popular documents