inquest Archives - Page 2 of 6

Expertise

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.

Challenging the Suitability of Expert Witnesses in the Coroner’s Court: R (Gamesys Operations Ltd) v HM Senior Coroner Inner London South [2025] EWHC 659

In this judicial review claim, the Administrative Court considered the extent of the coroner’s discretion to call expert evidence and whether expressing an opinion on a matter renders an expert unsuitable due to bias.  Facts  In preparation for an inquest into the death of Mr Adams, who had died in 2020 from cardiac arrhythmia and an overdose of medication, the coroner intended to explore whether gambling, or an undiagnosed gambling addiction, had contributed to his death. Professor Dame Clare Gerada was instructed as an expert in gambling addiction/disorder.  The Claimant and interested party in the inquest, Gamesys Operations Ltd, objected to her appointment claiming that she was biased. Instead, they proposed the instruction of Dr Frazer, a consultant psychiatrist with expertise in gambling disorders.  In response, the coroner chose to instruct both Professor Gerada and Dr Frazer. This failed to satisfy the Claimant, and they issued a judicial review claim. After being refused permission on the papers at first, they renewed their application at an oral hearing. The application was heard by Mrs Justice Lang.  Allegations of bias  The Claimant’s core submission was that Professor Gerada was biased on the basis that she was a “leading antigambling campaigner” who held a fixed and strong negative view on gambling herself. They further submitted that she was unsuitable because she had previously publicly advocated for gambling to be recorded as a causative factor in suicide inquests, led the NHS primary care gambling service funded by “Gamble Aware” and had recently given written evidence to a Select Committee Inquiry contrary to the position of the Claimant.  The Claimant also made allegations of personal conflicts of interest because Professor Gerada had previously been recommended to the coronial court by the family’s solicitors, Leigh Day, her son was a solicitor at Leigh Day and because until 2014, Mr Adams and his family had attended the GP surgery where she practised.  Grounds of challenge  There were four grounds of review:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>The coroner had failed to take into account of or did not accord sufficient weight to concerns about independence and impartiality raised by the Claimant in making his decision on expert evidence.</li>  <li>Professor Gerada was so obviously partisan that her appointment as expert infected the coroner with bias or gave reasonable apprehension of bias.</li>  <li>The coroner’s decision was irrational because no reasonable coroner would have appointed Professor Gerada as an expert witness.</li>  <li>The coroner did not provide adequate reasons for his decision.</li> </ol>  The family of Mr Adams opposed the Claimant’s application for judicial review, largely on the basis that Professor Gerada had exercised her duty of independence to the court on numerous occasions and was well-placed to assist the coroner on the issues being investigated.   Judgment  Wednesbury unreasonableness  The Court re-asserted the well-established principle that the coroner’s duty to ensure that relevant facts are fully investigated encompasses a broad discretion on which expert witnesses to call. When the exercise of that discretion is challenged, the Court must consider whether it is Wednesbury unreasonable.<a href="#_ftn1" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Mrs Justice Lang commented that the threshold is very high and it is clear that the Court “cannot dictate what witnesses the coroner calls”.<a href="#_ftn2" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a>  Irrationality  The Court found that the Claimant had no prospect of success in a rationality challenge. The expertise and qualifications of Professor Gerada were convincingly strong and different to those of Dr Frazer. By inviting both to give evidence, the coroner had made a scrupulously fair and balanced decision.  The suggestion that the coroner had not taken into account the Claimant’s concerns about impartiality and independence was not credible given the extensive submissions the coroner had invited on the subject. The weight afforded to those concerns, and the balance given to the family’s opposing position, was a matter for his discretionary judgment and not for the Court.  In this respect, Mrs Justice Lang noted the Claimant’s own interests in protecting its business reputation and success. She commented that protecting those interests was not the purpose of the inquest, but in any event, it was apparent that the coroner would ensure that evidence given by Professor Gerada did not go beyond the circumstances of Mr Adams’ death and stray into the political aspects of safeguarding potential problem gamblers.  Bias and fairness  Finally, the Court found that in assessing the lawfulness of the coroner’s approach, the most important consideration is one of fairness. Independence and impartiality of an expert may be relevant in considering fairness, but the test is not one of apparent bias, as the Claimant submitted.  In the context of an inquest, the test for fairness must be broad to encapsulate the inquisitorial nature and very broad powers of the coroner. Accordingly, a conflict of interest compromising the independence of an expert will ordinarily only arise when their opinion is or may be influenced by their personal interests. In applying this principle, Mrs Justice Lang found that Professor Gerada was not an unsuitable expert due to her professional interests in and views on addiction and gambling disorders as she was capable of adhering to her duty of independence. The alleged personal conflicts raised by the Claimant were immediately dismissed on the basis that those connections were insufficient to give rise to any arguable conflict.  Ultimately, the Court found that the coroner had conducted the proceedings in a scrupulously fair way and the allegation that inviting Professor Gerada to give evidence infected the coroner with bias was unarguable and had no prospects of success.  Comment  Unsurprisingly given the coroner’s wide discretion, the Administrative Court will be slow to interfere with a coroner’s decision on witnesses. Even when an expert has previously expressed apparently partial views on an issue, it will be difficult to bar them from giving evidence at an inquest when they are capable of adhering to their duty of independence.    It may not have assisted the Claimant that they challenged the coroner’s decision before any expert evidence had been written or conclusions made. The Administrative Court is likely to be even slower to interfere with a coroner’s procedural decision when the impact on the conclusion of the inquest has not yet crystallised. It appears, in this case, the coroner went above and beyond to maintain the fairness of the procedure and as a result, the Court was bound to respect his decision-making.  The judgment is available <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/659.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/georgia-banks-pupil/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Georgia Banks</a> is a second six pupil in Chambers and can now receive instructions in personal injury, clinical negligence and inquests.  <hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>  <a href="#_ftnref1" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> R (McGuire) v Assistant Coroner for West Yorkshire [2018] EWCA Civ 6.  <a href="#_ftnref2" id="_ftn2">[2]</a>  R (Lin) v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] EWHC 2575 (Admin), at paragraph 56, per Moses LJ).

Woman Dies Following Weight Loss Surgery and ‘Woeful’ Private Healthcare

A prominent North East businesswoman received “woeful” care following weight loss surgery at a private hospital, and died as a result of complications.   Nicola Fisher underwent a gastric sleeve operation at Spire Washington Hospital and developed a leak from her stomach as a consequence.   Following emergency NHS surgery in June 2023, less than two days after her discharge from Spire Washington Hospital, Nicola underwent several more rounds of surgery at Sunderland Royal Hospital over the following seven months due to ongoing complications.  At the inquest into her death, held at Sunderland Coroner’s Court, it was revealed that appropriate observations were not done by nurses at Spire Washington Hospital before her discharge, and medications were not given as expected. Nicola’s pre-discharge blood test results were also not checked prior to discharge.  Karin Welsh, assistant coroner, branded these failures “woeful” and said it had hampered her attempts to understand Nicola’s health at the time of her discharge, and establish whether there were missed opportunities to identify the leak and operate prior to her developing extensive infection in her abdomen.  Bharat Jangra, instructed by <a href="https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/our-experts/john-lowther/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">John Lowther</a> at Slater and Gordon, acted on behalf of Nicola’s husband, Peter, at the inquest.  This matter has received considerable coverage in the press:  <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14559119/Vibrant-businesswoman-died-multiple-organ-failure-following-weight-loss-surgery.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Daily Mail </a><a href="https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/25051446.sunderland-businesswoman-died-gastric-sleeve-surgery/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Northern Echo</a> <a href="https://www.sunderlandecho.com/health/coroners-report-into-death-of-washington-woman-following-gastric-surgery-highlights-woeful-aftercare-experienced-at-private-hospital-5059233" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sunderland Echo</a>

Missed Opportunities to Carry Out an Assessment During Mental Health Crisis

Megan Crowther represented the family of a young man who died after he jumped from the Wearmouth Bridge in Sunderland, whilst suffering an exacerbation of Schizoaffective Disorder. The Deceased had been recently been detained under the Mental Health Act for treatment and was discharged from hospital, around two months before his death, under a Community Treatment Order which allowed for him to be detained again under the Mental Health Act if he required further treatment.  The Inquest heard evidence that the Deceased had revealed an attempt to take his own life around two weeks before his death and as a result, the community treatment team were planning more regular checks on the Deceased. Unfortunately, over the following weekend, the Deceased called the Crisis Team in extreme distress and requested he be admitted to hospital. The Deceased was categorised as ‘very urgent’ for which a face to face assessment was expected within four hours. That did not take place. The Deceased phoned the Crisis Team several times over the following two days and repeated that he had plans to end his life, leading to a statement in his final phone call that he would jump from the bridge unless he was transferred to hospital or new accommodation. The Deceased was known to hear voices, specifically in his accommodation. Unfortunately, the Deceased jumped from the bridge within twenty minutes of the final phone call. There was no assessment of the Deceased in the 48 hours between his first phone call and his sad death.  The Coroner found that there were missed opportunities by the Crisis Team to carry out an earlier assessment of the Deceased, and that an assessment should have been carried out before he died. The Court heard evidence that if the Crisis Team had determined that the Deceased could not be managed in the community at this time, then the Responsible Clinician would have detained the Deceased under the MHA for further treatment. There was also a missed opportunity to call the police when the Deceased made a specific threat to jump from the bridge.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/megan-crowther/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Megan Crowther</a> practices clinical negligence, personal injury and inquests. She regularly represents interested persons in a wide range of inquests including complex medical matters and Article 2 inquests.

Attorney General’s Regional Panel

Parklane Plowden are pleased to announce that three of our members have been appointed to the Attorney General’s Regional Panel.  <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.  <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.  The government relies on the Panels for advice and representation and seeks candidates of the highest quality. Competition for places is fierce.  We’d like to congratulate Bronia, Richard and May on their appointments.   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>.

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

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).  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.  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.  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.  Finally, in August 2024, the inquest ended with the jury recording a conclusion of “unlawful killing by the Explorer Scout Leader and Assistant Explorer Scout Leader contributed to by neglect of the Scout Association”.  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.  The conclusion of unlawful killing  The case focussed around three of the six elements required for gross negligence manslaughter as outlined in R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093 at paragraph 5:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <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> </ul>  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <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> </ul>  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>Element (v): the breach of duty caused or made significant contribution to the death of the victim.</li> </ul>  Justice Fordham also considered R v Rose [2017] EWCA Crim 1168, 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 “the Rose Trap”.  The Court also referred to R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837 which clarifies that a foreseeable chance that risk of death might arise is not sufficient to establish a “serious and obvious risk of death”.  Serious and obvious risk of death does not require “imminence”  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 Kuddus 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.  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.  Obvious information avoids the Rose Trap  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.  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.  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, the Rose Trap was avoided.  The question of anonymity on the Record of Inquest  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.  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.  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.  Conclusion  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.  For that reason, and the reasons outlined above, the claims for judicial review failed.  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>.

Symptoms of perimenopause found to have contributed to the death of Danielle Moore, lead singer of Crazy 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.  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.  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.  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>.  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.  Press coverage:  <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr82r33x2eo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">BBC</a>  <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>  <a href="https://www.hellomagazine.com/healthandbeauty/health-and-fitness/810336/depression-anxiety-or-perimenopause-differences/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Hello Magazine</a>

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

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.  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.  After two days as an inpatient the deceased collapsed. Despite CPR, the deceased tragically died.  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.  He found the failure to correctly report the gastric band slip on the CT scan caused or contributed to the deceased’s death.  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.  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.  Media coverage can be read online here:  <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg45q8vpv8o" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg45q8vpv8o</a>  <a href="https://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-gastric-band-went-huddersfield-040000465.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&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&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC5SuZdm2em5klorACr9KvSZ7_d9ng3agpTO1l3glRqW1-fcpazKVyQgK3kVU2aFHZJhjqtpuGdghd_Ocj70GNgJGPN3xrxjbQSQn2a1gSkWvj1hqndPd-Uj4cnHBotRa73ksJl4-N3vubRJdEgB0mvpgUU4Q1RurL9kybM6B2bf</a>  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>.

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

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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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.  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>.

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

Background:  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.  Law:  Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 states that an offence will be committed if a person:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Encourages or assists suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and </li>  <li>The person intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempted suicide.</li> </ol>  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.  Section 1 Forfeiture Act 1982 states that ‘Anyone involved in the unlawful killing of another will be prevented from acquiring a benefit from that killing’.  Section 2 Forfeiture Act 1982 provides the exception. The court can modify the effect of the forfeiture rule if it is “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”.  Where an application for relief is granted under section 2 of the Act, families will be able to inherit the estate of the deceased.  Issues:  The issues in the case were:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>To what extent will the witness statement of the deceased absolve family members of suggestions of undue influence/pressure/encouragement? </li>  <li>What is the risk of prosecution for those involved in assisted dying? </li>  <li>Will involvement in the death bar family members from benefitting from the inheritance of the deceased under the Forfeiture Act 1982? </li> </ol>  Decision:  Mr Justice Trower held:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Myra’s witness statement made shortly before she died was of “particular importance”. She outlined the “intolerable nature of her life”. 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. Mr Morris accompanying her to Switzerland, completing necessary paperwork and reporting his own involvement was 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. </li>  <li>The courts will adopt the Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging/Assisting Suicide 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> 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 Dunbar v Plant. Bringing charges against family members who were assisting the deceased to fulfil a wish is not likely to be in the public interest. </li>  <li>A judge will look at the guidance above as well as “the degree of moral culpability for what has happened.” 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 “independently financially comfortable” and was not claiming relief for improper reasons. Therefore, the forfeiture rule was modified. Its application was excluded in full. </li> </ol>  Analysis:  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.  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 “determination to proceed” was “highly relevant” when considering prosecution.  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.  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.  The full judgment can be found here: <a href="https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/2554.html">Morris v Morris & Ors [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) (09 October 2024)</a>.

Leila Benyounes to speak at the British Orthopaedic Trainees Association Congress

The British Orthopaedic Trainees Association’s (BOTA) flagship event is taking place from the 26th – 29th November at the Edwardian Hotel, Manchester.  Leila is leading the medico-legal session on 28th November on Inquests and Coroner’s Court and running a Mock Inquest for delegates.  Leila is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked as a leading junior in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence and Inquests and Inquiries. Her full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">here</a>.

Latest News

Legal Update

1 July 2025

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Read time: 2 m

Event

24 June 2025

North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum Event in Newcastle – Women at the Bar and the Bench

Read time: < 1 m

News

24 June 2025

Lydia Reed – Pupillage: Looking back on my First-Six at Parklane Plowden

Read time: 3 m

Legal Update

23 June 2025

The new Express Financial Remedy pilot

Read time: 5 m

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.

Necessary

Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)