DOVE IN EFFECT
The inquest concerning the death of Chloe Moffat, a 26-year-old personal assistant who took her own life following flawed disciplinary proceedings by the Treasury, illustrates the application of Dove v Assistant Coroner for Teesside [2023] EWCA Civ 289.
The reader will recall that in Dove, the Court of Appeal recognised that:
- the discretion conferred on coroners to establish the background facts and then determine whether those facts were or were not causative of death is wide;
- the discretion to consider contributory factors cannot depend on the form those factors take;
- it would be undesirable to restrict a coroner’s discretion to conduct whatever investigations are appropriate within the ambit of a Jamieson inquest to establish “how” the deceased came by their death;
- in cases where suicide is raised as a possible conclusion, part of the coroner’s role is to investigate whether the deceased intended to take their own life, which will often lead to a consideration of whether the deceased acted while their mind was disturbed; and that an investigation of the cause or causes of disturbance of the mind may be part of, or lie very close to, the matters which are already before the coroner;
- the function of an inquest is to seek out and record as many of the facts concerning the death as the public interest requires and to establish the ‘substantial truth’ (Hillsborough);
- it is in the public interest when establishing the ‘substantial truth’ to consider whether public bodies’ actions have impacted on the mental health of citizens, even where Article 2 obligations are not owed.
In the inquest concerning the death of Chloe Moffat, Anna Crawford, HM Assistant Coroner for Surrey, found that the Treasury’s mishandling of disciplinary proceedings in respect of an allegation denied by the deceased “materially contributed” to her death.
The deceased took her own life the morning after a meeting of which she was given no notice and in which she was not informed that the likely outcome of the investigation would be a written warning and not dismissal.
The coroner found that the meeting was “not in accordance with [Treasury] policy” and denied the deceased safeguards such as being informed of the likely penalty and the right to be accompanied.
The inquest heard that the meeting left the deceased “devastated” and convinced she had lost her job. The coroner found that the resultant distress “contributed to her state of mind”.
The coroner was concerned that there is a risk of future deaths within the civil service from flawed handling of disciplinary processes and will issue a prevention of future deaths report directed to the head of the civil service, the Treasury and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).
Parklane Plowden Chambers
