Our Expertise

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Attorney General’s Regional Panel

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden are pleased to announce that three of our members have been appointed to the Attorney General’s Regional Panel.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bronia-hartley/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Bronia Hartley</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/richard-ryan/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Richard Ryan</a> have been appointed as Regional B Panel counsel from the 1st of March 2025 for a period of five years.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/may-martin/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">May Martin</a> has been appointed as Regional C Panel counsel from the 1st of March 2025 for a period of five years.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The government relies on the Panels for advice and representation and seeks candidates of the highest quality. Competition for places is fierce.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>We’d like to congratulate Bronia, Richard and May on their appointments.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>If you would like to get in touch with our clerking team, you can do so via <a href="mailto:clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">clerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Clarifying a conclusion of unlawful killing: R (Glaister &amp; Carr) v HM Assistant Coroner for North Wales [2025] EWHC 167 (Admin)

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Benjamin David Leonard was only aged 16 when he fell to his death from the Great Orme, North Wales, while on an Explorer Scout weekend away in August 2018. The weekend away was supervised by volunteer scout leaders, including the Claimants in this judicial review claim, Mr Glaister (Explorer Scout Leader) and Ms Carr (Assistant Explorer Scout Leader).</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>On a walk up the Great Orme, the group became separated, with Ms Carr leading and assuming Mr Glaister would round up Benjamin and two other scouts.&nbsp; Mr Glaister did not see them at any stage. Ms Carr saw Benjamin at the top on the grassy hills. She did not ask him to re-join the group. There had been no risk assessment conducted for the activity. Benjamin, in the hope of making it down the mountain more swiftly, followed animal tracks to the cliff edge and fell, suffering a brain injury.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The inquest was not straightforward; it involved two failed attempts in 2020 and 2022. When it eventually proceeded, it involved ten interested parties (including Mr Glaister and Ms Carr), 32 hearing days, live evidence from 20 witnesses and even a hearing held on a Sunday.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Finally, in August 2024, the inquest ended with the jury recording a conclusion of “<em>unlawful killing by the Explorer Scout Leader and Assistant Explorer Scout Leader contributed to by neglect of the Scout Association</em>”.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Glaister and Ms Carr brought claims by way of judicial review against the Assistant Coroner for North Wales culminating in this decision of the High Court.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The conclusion of unlawful killing</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The case focussed around three of the six elements required for gross negligence manslaughter as outlined in <strong><em>R v</em></strong> <strong><em>Broughton</em> [2020] EWCA Crim 1093</strong> at paragraph 5:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Element (iii): establishes a threshold of “serious and obvious risk of death” at the time of breach. “An obvious risk is one that is present, clear, and unambiguous. It is immediately apparent, striking and glaring rather than something that might become apparent on further investigation”.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Element (iv): it must have been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach of the duty, that the breach gave rise to a serious and obvious risk of death.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:list --> <ul class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Element (v): the breach of duty caused or made significant contribution to the death of the victim.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ul> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Justice Fordham also considered <strong><em>R v Rose </em>[2017] EWCA Crim 1168</strong>, which establishes thata “serious and obvious risk of death” must exist, and is to be assessed with respect to knowledge, at the time of the breach of duty. Therefore, information that the Claimants would have been aware, had they performed the duty that they breached, is excluded. Taking such information into account has been described as falling into “<em>the Rose Trap</em>”.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court also referred to <strong><em>R v Kuddus </em>[2019] EWCA Crim 837</strong> which clarifies that a foreseeable chance that risk of death might arise is not sufficient to establish a “serious and obvious risk of death”.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Serious and obvious risk of death does not require “imminence”</span></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Both Claimants submitted that the only thing that gave rise to a foreseeable serious and obvious risk of death, was the action of Benjamin going near to the steep cliffs. They argued that prior to that point, there could be nothing more than a <strong><em>Kuddus</em> </strong>chance of risk. As there was no evidence that either Claimant had been aware that Benjamin was near to the cliff at a time they could have intervened, they argued that unlawful killing could not reasonably be left to the jury.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Justice Fordham did not agree that a “serious and obvious risk of death” could only arise when Benjamin was near to the cliffs. He determined that the Claimants’ analysis incorrectly introduced imminence into the threshold of “obvious and serious risk of death”. Justice Fordham did not agree that imminence was already required by case law, and nor could he see the logic of introducing it.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Obvious information avoids the Rose Trap</span></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Claimants also contended that the evidence could not support a finding by a properly directed jury of reasonable foreseeability of serious and obvious risk of death without falling into the Rose Trap.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In relation to Mr Glaister, the Court found that on a possible view of the facts, his conduct regarding planning and instruction as Scout Leader meant that a finding of unlawful killing could safely be left to the jury. Likewise, in relation to Ms Carr, the conclusion could safely be left to the jury based on her conduct when she saw Benjamin and the other scouts on the grassy tops prior to Benjamin’s fall.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Justice Fordham considered that it was not necessary to attribute them knowledge in respect of what would or would not have been known at the time of the breach of duty, because the dangers posed by the terrain of the Great Orme were obvious to them. Thus, <em>the Rose Trap</em> was avoided.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>The question of anonymity on the Record of Inquest</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Both Claimants sought to quash the wording of Section 4 ROI which identified them by their roles as “Explorer Scout Leader” and “Assistant Explorer Scout Leader”. They submitted that their identification was contrary to s.10(2) Criminal Justice Act 2009, which prohibits the determination of how, when and where the deceased came by their death being framed in a way that would determine, or appear to determine, any question of criminal or civil liability on the part of a named person.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Justice Fordham found against the Claimants in this respect. He considered that the Claimants’ arguments would require the Assistant Coroner, in some circumstances, to require deliberate ambiguity where the jury reaches a conclusion for unlawful killing. The Court concluded that the law does not mandate ambiguity but allows clarity.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Justice Fordham further emphasised that an inquest is not about apportioning blame, it is about full and fearless fact-finding. This means that there will be occasions that require the naming of identifiable individuals against whom a finding of unlawful killing relates, as in this case. Even when that does happen, the inquest has not determined criminal or civil liability against that person, and the public should be expected to understand that.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court’s consideration of the lawfulness of directions and summing up to the jury have not been addressed in this short summary. Suffice to say, although not perfect, Justice Fordham could not find any reasons that the Assistant Coroner’s directions or summing up to the jury were so deficient as to render the jury’s conclusions on unlawful killing unsafe.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For that reason, and the reasons outlined above, the claims for judicial review failed.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Judgment available <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Glaister-Carr-AC-2024-MAN-000186-Fordham-J-approved-judgment-for-hand-down-30.1.25-approved.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Symptoms of perimenopause found to have contributed to the death of Danielle Moore, lead singer of Crazy P

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Bronia represented the family of Danielle Moore, musician and lead singer/front-person of Crazy P, who took her own life on 30 August 2024, age 52.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The inquest heard that prior to her death, Danielle began to experience low mood and dissociation after many years of good mental health. The coroner found that the symptoms of perimenopause, coupled with exhaustion, contributed to Danielle’s death.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Following the inquest, Danielle’s family released a statement calling for more awareness around the impact of the perimenopause and menopause on women’s mental health. Low mood, anxiety, mood swings and low self-esteem are recognised as common symptoms on the NHS website, but there is an increasing body of research suggesting that perimenopausal women (especially those with a history of mental health disorders) have a significantly higher risk of being diagnosed with depression compared to premenopausal women.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Bronia was instructed by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/adele-whitfield-bbb04211/?originalSubdomain=uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Adele Whitfield</a> of <a href="https://www.eatonsmith.co.uk/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Eaton Smith LLP</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Bronia is appointed as an Assistant Coroner. She regularly represents interested persons in a wide range of inquests including Article 2 jury inquests and complex medical matters, with particular expertise in mental health provision.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Press coverage: </p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr82r33x2eo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">BBC</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.nme.com/news/music/crazy-p-singer-danielle-moores-family-release-statement-after-suicide-inquest-the-image-of-human-kindness-and-generosity-of-spirit-3829695" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">NME</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/810336/depression-anxiety-or-perimenopause-differences/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Hello Magazine</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Critical Failure to Report a Gastric Band Slip Found to be Neglect

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Sophie Watson represented the family of a 46-year-old woman who tragically died due to complications arising from a gastric band slip of which there was a missed opportunity for the hospital to identify and intervene.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In March 2024 the deceased attended the hospital after experiencing coffee ground vomit and significant abdominal pain. A CT scan and chest x-ray were both performed. The CT scan failed to identify the gastric band was in an abnormal lie despite it being visible on the imaging. The clinicians also did not identify the abnormal positioning upon reviewing the chest x-ray.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>After two days as an inpatient the deceased collapsed. Despite CPR, the deceased tragically died.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The coroner found there was a critical failure to report that the deceased’s gastric band had slipped which contributed to the failure to refer the deceased to bariatric specialists. He found this failure represented neglect.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>He found the failure to correctly report the gastric band slip on the CT scan caused or contributed to the deceased’s death.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The coroner issued a future prevention of death report to NHS England and the Royal College of Radiology given his concerns about the lack of knowledge of gastric band positioning by radiologists nationally.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Sophie was instructed by <a href="https://www.ramsdens.co.uk/team/rachel-sharp" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Rachel Sharp</a> of Ramsdens Solicitors.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Media coverage can be read online here:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg45q8vpv8o" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg45q8vpv8o</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-gastric-band-went-huddersfield-040000465.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC5SuZdm2em5klorACr9KvSZ7_d9ng3agpTO1l3glRqW1-fcpazKVyQgK3kVU2aFHZJhjqtpuGdghd_Ocj70GNgJGPN3xrxjbQSQn2a1gSkWvj1hqndPd-Uj4cnHBotRa73ksJl4-N3vubRJdEgB0mvpgUU4Q1RurL9kybM6B2bf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-gastric-band-went-huddersfield-040000465.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC5SuZdm2em5klorACr9KvSZ7_d9ng3agpTO1l3glRqW1-fcpazKVyQgK3kVU2aFHZJhjqtpuGdghd_Ocj70GNgJGPN3xrxjbQSQn2a1gSkWvj1hqndPd-Uj4cnHBotRa73ksJl4-N3vubRJdEgB0mvpgUU4Q1RurL9kybM6B2bf</a></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Sophie is a member of the Inquest and Inquiries team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and regularly acts on behalf of Interested Persons at Inquests. Sophie’s full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sophie-watson/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Neglect Found to have Contributed to Death from a Failure to Diagnose Pulmonary Thromboembolism

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila Benyounes represented the family of a lady who died at home from an undiagnosed pulmonary thromboembolism 10 days after presenting at her GP with sudden shortness of breath on exertion. Her death occurred seven days after she was discharged from hospital, after being referred there by her GP, due to a misdiagnosis of heart failure.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>At the inquest, it was held that the lady developed a thromboembolism prior to her attendance at hospital, and in accordance with NICE guidance the presence of a pulmonary thromboembolism should have been suspected as a possible diagnosis. It was held that further investigations should have been arranged, which would have confirmed the diagnosis.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>It was further held that high dose anti-coagulant medication should have been administered, thereby reducing the existing pulmonary thromboembolism, and preventing others from forming, which would have prevented the lady’s death.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The coroner found that there were gross failures to provide basic medical care to the lady, which would on the balance of probabilities, have prevented her death.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>A formal finding of ‘neglect’ was made by the coroner who concluded that the lady’s death was aggravated by lack of care and recorded that the death was due to natural causes contributed to by neglect.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Leila was instructed by <a href="https://www.fletcherssolicitors.co.uk/team/jerard-knott/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Jerard Knott</a> and Laura Forsyth of Fletchers Solicitors.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Leila Benyounes is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked as Band 1 by Legal 500 for Inquests and Inquiries. Leila has been appointed to the Attorney General’s Treasury Counsel Panel A since 2010. Leila is appointed as an Assistant Coroner in two coronial areas. Leila regularly represents interested persons in a wide range of inquests including Article 2 jury inquests and complex medical matters. Her full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a></em>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Compassion vs Culpability: Morris v Morris &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch)

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Background:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Myra Morris was a 73-year-old woman with a degenerative neurological disorder that had no cure. She flew to Switzerland to attend the Pegasos clinic to end her life with medical assistance. She travelled with her husband, son, daughter, and sister. Myra therefore ended her own life with the assistance of her husband, and consequently an assisted dying offence was made out and the Forfeiture Act applied. Myra’s husband Mr Philip Morris applied for relief under section 2(2) of the Forfeiture Act 1982 in order to benefit from his late wife Myra’s estate.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Law:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 states that an offence will be committed if a person:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Encourages or assists suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and<br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The person intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempted suicide.</li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>However, section 2(4) makes it clear that no proceedings will be brought against a person for the offence unless the DPP has provided consent.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Section 1 Forfeiture Act 1982 states that ‘<em>Anyone involved in the unlawful killing of another will be prevented from acquiring a benefit from that killing’.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Section 2 Forfeiture Act 1982 provides the exception. The court can modify the effect of the forfeiture rule if it is “<em>satisfied that, having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the court to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case”.</em></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Where an application for relief is granted under section 2 of the Act, families will be able to inherit the estate of the deceased.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Issues:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The issues in the case were:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>To what extent will the witness statement of the deceased absolve family members of suggestions of undue influence/pressure/encouragement?<br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>What is the risk of prosecution for those involved in assisted dying?<br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Will involvement in the death bar family members from benefitting from the inheritance of the deceased under the Forfeiture Act 1982?<br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Decision:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Justice Trower held:</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {"ordered":true} --> <ol class="wp-block-list"><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>Myra’s witness statement made shortly before she died was of <em>“particular</em> <em>importance</em>”. She outlined the “<em>intolerable nature of her life”. </em>This evidence led to the conclusion that merely being present at another’s death (Myra’s son, daughter and sister) will be insufficient to amount to a section 2(1) Suicide Act offence. This is because they were not directly involved in Myra’s plans to go to Switzerland. They tried to dissuade her, but she was determined to proceed.   <br><br>Mr Morris accompanying her to Switzerland, completing necessary paperwork and reporting his own involvement <em>was </em>sufficient to make out a section 2(1) offence. This was the case despite no encouragement and the fact that Myra would have gone to Switzerland anyway.<br><br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>The courts will adopt the <em>Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging/Assisting Suicide </em>guidance. This is attached here: <a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/legal_guidance/assisted-suicide-policy.pdf">assisted-suicide-policy.pdf</a><br><br>The Policy Guidance lists 16 factors to consider in favour of prosecution. The court will weigh up the factors present, against factors listed against prosecution. Public interest remains a high consideration following <em>Dunbar v Plant. </em>Bringing charges against family members who were assisting the deceased to fulfil a wish is not likely to be in the public interest.<br><br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item --> <li>A judge will look at the guidance above as well as <em>“the degree of moral culpability for what has happened.”</em><br><br>The approach of moral culpability looks at the state of mind of the ‘offender’ – here, this was Myra’s husband, Mr Morris. Mr Justice Trower concluded that there was no moral culpability in the case because Mr Morris was “<em>independently financially comfortable”</em> and was not claiming relief for improper reasons. Therefore, the forfeiture rule was modified. Its application was excluded in full.<br></li> <!-- /wp:list-item --></ol> <!-- /wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong><u>Analysis:</u></strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>This case emphasises that the element of culpability or blameworthiness is not a strong consideration for coroners when deciding unlawful killings. Compared to criminal proceedings, the civil courts will look at whether ‘offenders’ – i.e. those who assisted the deceased – are instead motivated by compassion. Indeed, compassion as a motivation is a key consideration in the Policy Guidance at paragraph 45.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The reasons for compassion will also be considered. In this case, these included the type of relationship, the length of relationship, and the determination of the deceased. The court had an understanding that Myra’s “<em>determination to proceed</em>” was “<em>highly relevant” </em>when considering prosecution.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>For those practicing in coronial law, this case is useful when considering possible conclusions in inquests. Even if elements of assisted dying are made out, a conclusion of unlawful killing may not be necessary. Short term conclusions are not compulsory in inquests and, in situations where context about compassion is key, a narrative conclusion may be more appropriate. The legality of the death does not require comment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>If and until the Assisted Dying Bill is passed, coroners cannot conclude ‘assisted dying’ in inquests. Therefore, a compassionate approach may instead be adopted to reflect the case law.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The full judgment can be found here: <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2554.html">Morris v Morris &amp; Ors [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) (09 October 2024)</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Parklane Plowden Chambers Appoints Senior Practice Director

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Parklane Plowden Chambers has appointed Paul Clarke as senior practice director for civil and employment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Paul's addition completes our new management structure. Paul is pictured above with (L) Senior Practice Director Stephen Render who heads our chancery and commercial and family teams, and (R) Martin Beanland, Head of Service &amp; Finance Director.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Paul joins from Kings Chambers, where he clerked for almost 30 years and was most recently responsible for the employment, personal injury, clinical negligence, sports law and court of protection practices.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>As senior practice director, Paul is working with the heads of the civil and employment teams alongside individual members to identify and implement business growth strategies. Paul’s wealth of experience will enhance the set’s clerking team and help them continue to deliver high levels of service and support to clients.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In its 2025 rankings, barristers’ directory, <em>Chambers &amp; Partners</em>, placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1 across its chancery; clinical negligence; employment; and personal injury practice areas. Additionally, the set was ranked Band 2 for inquests and inquiries.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Commenting on his new appointment, Paul said: “I am delighted to be taking on this new role and joining such an established and prestigious set of chambers.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“We have an exceptional and well recognised team of barristers working closely with highly regarded and experienced support staff. This is a potent combination as we look to continue providing high level advice, advocacy and client care.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“The North Eastern circuit has a thriving legal market, and I am excited to play my part in PLP’s ongoing vision for growth.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Formed in 2007 following the merger of Parklane Chambers in Leeds and Plowden Chambers in Newcastle, Parklane Plowden is home to 118 members.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Welcoming Paul to PLP, head of chambers, James Murphy, said: “Paul has extensive experience as a leading clerk, and we are pleased he is joining us as a senior practice director.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“At PLP, our civil and employment barristers have an established leading reputation and these practice areas represents a core growth opportunity for our set across the North Eastern Circuit.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>“Having Paul on board will be instrumental in achieving this. We look forward to leveraging his leadership and management expertise to ensure high quality services are maintained for our clients as we go from strength to strength.” &nbsp;</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><em>Chambers &amp; Partners</em> also placed Parklane Plowden as Band 1, the highest ranking a chambers can achieve, across family and children and Band 2 for family: matrimonial finance.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The 2025 edition of legal directory <em>The Legal 500</em> ranks Parklane Plowden Chambers as a tier one barristers’ set across five practice areas. These include chancery, probate and tax; clinical negligence; employment; family and children law and personal injury.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In addition, <em>The Legal 500</em> recommends 79 of the set’s barristers across 11 practice areas.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

When does fresh evidence require a further inquest under s.13 of the Senior Coroners Act 1988?

<!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>HM Senior Coroner for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles v Elaine Rowe, Helen Price, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust [2024] EWHC 2673 (Admin)</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Facts</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Before Lord Justice Holroyde and Mrs Justice McGowan, HM Senior Coroner for Cornwall and the Scilly Isles applied for orders quashing the two inquests into the death of Edward John Masters and Mary Helen Rooker, held in 2017 and 2013 respectively. The application was made pursuant to Section 13(1)(b) of the Senior Coroners Act 1988 on the ground that new facts and evidence made it necessary and desirable for a fresh investigation into the deaths. All of the interested parties were aware of, and supported, the applications.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mr Masters underwent elective surgery in 2017 to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. After initial recovery from surgery, his condition deteriorated and he suffered internal bleeding leading to cardiac arrest. He sadly died later that evening. The original inquest into Mr Masters death concluded that he had died from a known complication of the elective surgical procedure.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>Mrs Rooker also underwent surgery for the repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm in 2012. Post-operatively, she suffered internal bleeding. A laparotomy could not identify an obvious cause of the bleeding, and she underwent a further procedure when a scan revealed a perforation of the bowel. Her condition continued to decline over the following days and she sadly died 12 days after the initial surgery. The original inquest concluded that Mrs Rooker’s death was partly caused by peritonitis, a recognised complication of the surgery.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Fresh Evidence</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In January 2019, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust requested the Royal College of Surgeons to undertake a review of their vascular surgery unit, including the work of the surgeon who had operated on Mr Masters’ and Mrs Rooker. Serious patient safety issues in relation to the patients of that surgeon were identified by those conducting the review.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The fresh evidence identified shortcomings in the consent process and in the care and treatment of Mr Masters during his operation.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>An expert report, not available at the time of the original inquest, by Professor Bradbury (a Professor of Vascular Surgery and Consultant Vascular and Endovascular surgeon), pointed towards negligence in relation to Mrs Rooker’s surgery on three parts: (i) proceeding to operate despite low platelet count; (ii) lack of informed consent; and (iii) unacceptable standards of treatment.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In both cases, the evidence raised the possibility that their deaths were contributed to by acts/omissions on the part of the surgeon and by a collective failure of care and systems at the hospital.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Legal test</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In these circumstances, the Court was required to consider the single question as to whether the interests of justice made a further inquest either necessary or desirable.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>In doing so, they applied the Hillsborough case (<em>HM Attorney General v HM Coroner of South Yorkshire (West)</em> [2012] EWHC 3783) where the&nbsp; Lord Judge CJ had stated “…<em>it seems to us elementary that the emergence of fresh evidence which may reasonably lead to the conclusion that the substantial truth about how an individual met his death was not revealed at the first inquest, will normally make it both desirable and necessary in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be ordered</em>.”</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p><strong>Findings</strong></p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The Court was satisfied, on the fresh evidence before it, that it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice for another inquest to be directed in both cases. The determination and findings of the original inquests were quashed. The Court noted it was not necessary for the Coroner to prove that a fresh investigation would probably lead to a different outcome, but on the evidence before them in each case, it was considered likely in any event.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --> <p>The judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/2673.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.</p> <!-- /wp:paragraph -->