WORCESTER COUNTY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER V HM CORONER FOR WORCESTERSHIRE [2013] EWHC 1711 (QB)
FACTS:-
A 16 year old girl was found hanging from a tree in March 2011. She had had a troubled life having alleged sexual abuse against two men, one of whom was facing criminal proceedings. She had problems with her parents and so she was accommodated by Worcestershire County Council under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. She was placed with foster carers and progressed well. However events over overshadowed by criminal proceedings against her alleged abuser and she disclosed suicidal thoughts. She left her foster parents and went to stay with friends with whom she remained living until her death. She had been told the day before her death that her foster parents could not take her back. On the day of her death, she was visited by a social worker and it was apparent that she had been self harming.
There was inquest held by HM Coroner for Worcestershire and Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board undertook a Serious Case Review (“SCR”). The Board obtained 10 Individual Management Reviews ("IMRs") and 6 Information Reports ("IRs") but declined to provide the Coroner with these, although they did provide a copy of the draft overview report. HM Coroner applied to The High Court for permission to issue witness summonses requiring The Board and Worcestershire County Council ("The Council") to produce these and other documents to him, pursuant to CPR 34.3(2)(c) and CPR 34.4(1). That permission was granted by Master Cook on 15.11.12. On 5.12.12 The Board and The Council applied to set aside these witness summonses on the basis that their contents were protected by public interest immunity and/or their disclosure was unnecessary, pursuant to CPR 34.4(2).
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Baker considered section 13 of the Children Act 2004, which stated that every local authority in England was under a statutory duty to establish a Local Safeguarding Children Board ("LSCB") for its area, pursuant to section 13 of The Children Act 2004. He also considered The Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006. The current guidance referred to in the 2004 Act was "Working Together to Safeguard Children (2010)". There was also a nationally agreed document, "A guide for The Police, The Crown Prosecution Service, Local Safeguarding Children Boards to assist with liaison and the Exchange of information when there are simultaneous Chapter 8 Serious Case Reviews and Criminal Proceedings" dated April 2011”. This stated that where a senior investigating police officer had genuine reason to believe that the SCR was likely to have obtained relevant material, the LSCB Chair should treat favourably any request by the police to view the material which it was felt might be of relevance. In relation to publication of the various reports provided by the SCR process, there had been an alteration in the 2010 Working Together guidance provided by the Secretary of State which was set out in a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families dated 10.6.10; such that whereas previously only a suitably anonymised executive summary of the overview report was made public since 10.6.10 the full anonymised SCR overview report was published. The anonymised IMRs were to remain unpublished, save for their provision to Ofsted and other similar bodies.
Baker J then considered the role of HM Coroner and the Coroners Act 1988 as well as the Coroners Rules 1984. Although Rule 57A of the Coroners Rules 1984 provided for the supply of information by a coroner to a LSCB, there was no provision for the supply of information by the LSCB to a coroner. However the Ministry of Justice had provided "Guidance for coroners and Local Safeguarding Children Boards on the supply of information concerning the death of children" which stated that if any information came to the attention of LSCBs which they believe should be drawn to the attention of the relevant coroner, then the LSCB should consider supplying it to the coroner as a matter of urgency.
Baker J referred to the following cases, which considered the scope of the coroner’s function:-
Baker J commented that when the relevant provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 were implemented, this balance would be required to be determined by a Senior Coroner; subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. However, until such time, this balance was one which was required to be carried out by the court. In doing so, it was necessary to bear in mind a number of factors which were likely to subsist in such cases:
i) HM Coroner had an equally crucial role in investigating suspicious deaths within his area, including the death of a "looked after" child who had died a "violent or unnatural death."
ii) Subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, the scope of an inquest was essentially a matter for the coroner.
iii) Reflecting the pre-eminent role of HM Coroner in deciding the scope of an inquest, this court would only interfere with such a decision in exceptional circumstances
iv) The role of HM Coroner was not an adversarial one, but an investigative one.
v) Where in the context of a claim of public interest immunity a balance had to be struck between competing public interests, it might be that because of the nature of his inquiry the balance ought normally to be in favour of disclosure to HM Coroner.
vi) What was sought is not disclosure of the IMRs and IRs to the public in general or indeed anyone else, save and except HM Coroner. Thus the argument in favour of non-disclosure arising out of the need to encourage openness within the IMRs and IRs was likely to be significantly diluted.
vii) The question of any further disclosure was a matter for HM Coroner, having taken into account any further arguments in favour of non-disclosure and subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court.
In the present case HM Coroner had made it clear that although it was a distinct possibility that an Article 2 (European Convention on Human Rights) type inquest would be required, he had not as yet made this decision. Baker J said that he had read both the draft SCR overview report and the IMRs and IRs in this case. It was apparent that the former provided a reasonably thorough review of the contact which the various contributing agencies had with the deceased prior to her death. However it was equally apparent that the IMRs and IRs provided considerably more detail concerning both the nature and degree of contact which both individuals and contributing agencies had.
Baker J said that there was in this case every reason to conclude that the IMRs and IRs did contain significantly more detailed information of potential relevance to HM Coroner for the purposes of his inquiry, over and above that which was contained in the draft overview report and the witness statements and documentation he had already obtained in the course of his inquiry. The public interest in the pursuit of a full and appropriately detailed inquest firmly outweighed the claim for non-disclosure. He would decline the Board's application to set aside the witness summons granted by Master Cook in relation to the IMRs and IRs. Baker J made it clear that nothing said in relation to the balance of public interest in relation to the issue of disclosure of this material to HM Coroner indicated where the balance should fall vis a vis members of the public, including any interested parties at the inquest. This would be a matter for determination by HM Coroner in due course, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. HM Coroner had undertaken not to make any such disclosure without first notifying the Board and relevant contributing agencies, allowing them sufficient time to make submissions and thereafter, if advised, to seek to invoke this court's supervisory jurisdiction. Thus there would be sufficient safeguards in place in order to protect the proper interests of the Board, the contributing agencies and those individual professionals who had been involved in this matter.
FACTS:-
A 16 year old girl was found hanging from a tree in March 2011. She had had a troubled life having alleged sexual abuse against two men, one of whom was facing criminal proceedings. She had problems with her parents and so she was accommodated by Worcestershire County Council under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. She was placed with foster carers and progressed well. However events over overshadowed by criminal proceedings against her alleged abuser and she disclosed suicidal thoughts. She left her foster parents and went to stay with friends with whom she remained living until her death. She had been told the day before her death that her foster parents could not take her back. On the day of her death, she was visited by a social worker and it was apparent that she had been self harming.
There was inquest held by HM Coroner for Worcestershire and Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board undertook a Serious Case Review (“SCR”). The Board obtained 10 Individual Management Reviews ("IMRs") and 6 Information Reports ("IRs") but declined to provide the Coroner with these, although they did provide a copy of the draft overview report. HM Coroner applied to The High Court for permission to issue witness summonses requiring The Board and Worcestershire County Council ("The Council") to produce these and other documents to him, pursuant to CPR 34.3(2)(c) and CPR 34.4(1). That permission was granted by Master Cook on 15.11.12. On 5.12.12 The Board and The Council applied to set aside these witness summonses on the basis that their contents were protected by public interest immunity and/or their disclosure was unnecessary, pursuant to CPR 34.4(2).
JUDGEMENT:-
Judge Baker considered section 13 of the Children Act 2004, which stated that every local authority in England was under a statutory duty to establish a Local Safeguarding Children Board ("LSCB") for its area, pursuant to section 13 of The Children Act 2004. He also considered The Local Safeguarding Children Boards Regulations 2006. The current guidance referred to in the 2004 Act was "Working Together to Safeguard Children (2010)". There was also a nationally agreed document, "A guide for The Police, The Crown Prosecution Service, Local Safeguarding Children Boards to assist with liaison and the Exchange of information when there are simultaneous Chapter 8 Serious Case Reviews and Criminal Proceedings" dated April 2011”. This stated that where a senior investigating police officer had genuine reason to believe that the SCR was likely to have obtained relevant material, the LSCB Chair should treat favourably any request by the police to view the material which it was felt might be of relevance. In relation to publication of the various reports provided by the SCR process, there had been an alteration in the 2010 Working Together guidance provided by the Secretary of State which was set out in a letter from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families dated 10.6.10; such that whereas previously only a suitably anonymised executive summary of the overview report was made public since 10.6.10 the full anonymised SCR overview report was published. The anonymised IMRs were to remain unpublished, save for their provision to Ofsted and other similar bodies.
Baker J then considered the role of HM Coroner and the Coroners Act 1988 as well as the Coroners Rules 1984. Although Rule 57A of the Coroners Rules 1984 provided for the supply of information by a coroner to a LSCB, there was no provision for the supply of information by the LSCB to a coroner. However the Ministry of Justice had provided "Guidance for coroners and Local Safeguarding Children Boards on the supply of information concerning the death of children" which stated that if any information came to the attention of LSCBs which they believe should be drawn to the attention of the relevant coroner, then the LSCB should consider supplying it to the coroner as a matter of urgency.
Baker J referred to the following cases, which considered the scope of the coroner’s function:-
- Regina v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex parte North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex-parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1
- Regina v Inner West London Coroner ex parte Dallaglio & Another [1994] 4 All ER 139
- Regina v Inner South London Coroner, ex parte Douglas-Williams [1998] 1 All ER 334
- Regina (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner and Another [2004] UKHL 10
- Plymouth City Council v Her Majesty's Coroner for the County of Devon (Plymouth and South West District) and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] EWHC 1014 (Admin)
- The Queen (on the application of Butler) v HM Coroner for the Black Country District [2010] EWHC 43 (Admin)
- Regina (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervening) [2010] UKSC
- Conway v Rimmer and another [1968] AC910
- D v NSPCC [1978] AC171
- Regina v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police ex parte Wiley [1995] 1AC274
- Taylor v Anderton (Police Complaints Authority Intervening) [1995] 1 WLR 447
- Re A Subpoena (Adoption Commissioner for Local Administration) [1996] 2 FLR 629
- McCaughey (Judicial Review Application) [2004] NI QB 2
- Inner West London Assistant Deputy Coroner v Channel Four Television Corporation [2008] 1WLR 945
- South Tyneside Borough Council v Wickes Building Supplies Limited [2004] NPC 164
Baker J commented that when the relevant provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 were implemented, this balance would be required to be determined by a Senior Coroner; subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. However, until such time, this balance was one which was required to be carried out by the court. In doing so, it was necessary to bear in mind a number of factors which were likely to subsist in such cases:
i) HM Coroner had an equally crucial role in investigating suspicious deaths within his area, including the death of a "looked after" child who had died a "violent or unnatural death."
ii) Subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, the scope of an inquest was essentially a matter for the coroner.
iii) Reflecting the pre-eminent role of HM Coroner in deciding the scope of an inquest, this court would only interfere with such a decision in exceptional circumstances
iv) The role of HM Coroner was not an adversarial one, but an investigative one.
v) Where in the context of a claim of public interest immunity a balance had to be struck between competing public interests, it might be that because of the nature of his inquiry the balance ought normally to be in favour of disclosure to HM Coroner.
vi) What was sought is not disclosure of the IMRs and IRs to the public in general or indeed anyone else, save and except HM Coroner. Thus the argument in favour of non-disclosure arising out of the need to encourage openness within the IMRs and IRs was likely to be significantly diluted.
vii) The question of any further disclosure was a matter for HM Coroner, having taken into account any further arguments in favour of non-disclosure and subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court.
In the present case HM Coroner had made it clear that although it was a distinct possibility that an Article 2 (European Convention on Human Rights) type inquest would be required, he had not as yet made this decision. Baker J said that he had read both the draft SCR overview report and the IMRs and IRs in this case. It was apparent that the former provided a reasonably thorough review of the contact which the various contributing agencies had with the deceased prior to her death. However it was equally apparent that the IMRs and IRs provided considerably more detail concerning both the nature and degree of contact which both individuals and contributing agencies had.
Baker J said that there was in this case every reason to conclude that the IMRs and IRs did contain significantly more detailed information of potential relevance to HM Coroner for the purposes of his inquiry, over and above that which was contained in the draft overview report and the witness statements and documentation he had already obtained in the course of his inquiry. The public interest in the pursuit of a full and appropriately detailed inquest firmly outweighed the claim for non-disclosure. He would decline the Board's application to set aside the witness summons granted by Master Cook in relation to the IMRs and IRs. Baker J made it clear that nothing said in relation to the balance of public interest in relation to the issue of disclosure of this material to HM Coroner indicated where the balance should fall vis a vis members of the public, including any interested parties at the inquest. This would be a matter for determination by HM Coroner in due course, subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. HM Coroner had undertaken not to make any such disclosure without first notifying the Board and relevant contributing agencies, allowing them sufficient time to make submissions and thereafter, if advised, to seek to invoke this court's supervisory jurisdiction. Thus there would be sufficient safeguards in place in order to protect the proper interests of the Board, the contributing agencies and those individual professionals who had been involved in this matter.