Law reports
LEGAL UPDATE
CORONER
Prisoner's suicide - coroner directing inquest jury not to return verdict referring to neglect - state's investigative duty not satisfied unless jury enabled to express factual conclusions on central issues
R (Sacker) v West Yorkshire Coroner: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Carswell): 11 March 2004
The deceased hanged herself in her prison cell while on remand.
The claimant, her mother, asserting that the prison service had failed to take proper steps to prevent the death, requested the coroner to leave the issue of neglect to the inquest jury.
He refused and, on his direction under section 11 of the Coroners Act 1988 and rules 36 and 42 of the Coroners Rules 1984, the jury returned a verdict of suicide, determining the question 'how' death occurred without reference to neglect or attributing criminal or civil liability.
The claimant sought judicial review of the coroner's refusal as rendering the inquest inadequate to satisfy the state's investigative duty under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On the judge's refusal of permission to proceed, she appealed.
The Court of Appeal, granting permission and judicial review, concluded that a rider of neglect should have been available to the jury and ordered a fresh inquest.
The coroner appealed.
Ian Burnett QC and James Findlay (instructed by Walker Morris, Leeds) for the coroner; Richard Gordon QC and Stephen Cragg (instructed by Howells, Sheffield) for the claimant.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that, respecting the scheme enacted by Parliament save to the extent necessary to comply with international obligations, the 1998 Act indicated that 'how' in the 1988 Act and the 1984 rules should now connote 'by what means and in what circumstances' the death occurred ; and that, since the coroner had been unable to invite the jury to consider the factual issues on that basis, the inquest had not satisfied the state's duty under article 2 and a fresh inquest was appropriate.
(WLR)
PROFESSIONS
Charge of serious professional misconduct against general practitioner dismissed by professional conduct committee - Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals having power to refer case following practitioner's acquittal - power exercisable where other allegations against practitioner outstanding
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council and another: QBD (Mr Justice Leveson): 29 March 2004
The professional conduct committee of the General Medical Council recorded a finding against a doctor that he was not guilty of serious professional misconduct while the General Medical Council was conducting an investigation into a further allegation against him.
The Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals, established to provide a degree of oversight of existing self regulatory bodies for healthcare professionals, appealed against the dismissal of proceedings.
John Howell QC and Thomas de la Mare (instructed by Baker & McKenzie) for the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals; David Anderson QC and Jemima Stratford (instructed by Peter Steel) for the General Medical Council; Neil Garnham QC and Neil Sheldon (instructed by RadcliffesLe Brasseur) for the doctor.
Held, that the intention of Parliament was to provide the Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals with the widest powers to oversee the activities of each of the regulatory bodies brought under its umbrella; that the council had the power, in appropriate circumstances, to refer to the relevant court the case of a health-care practitioner who had been acquitted of serious professional misconduct by his professional body, and could do so notwithstanding that there was outstanding against him either an allegation that might lead to other disciplinary proceedings or any other such proceedings.
(WLR)
TORT
Organs removed from children at post-mortems and retained until disposal - doctors owing parents duty of care when obtaining consent for post-mortem - no cause of action for unlawful interference with body where no right of burial and organs lawfully removed and retained
A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust and another, and related actions: QBD (Mr Justice Gage): 26 March 2004
The claimants were parents of deceased children whose organs had been removed at post-mortems and retained in the hospitals where the post-mortems had been carried out until such time as the organs were disposed of.
The claimants in lead claims in group litigation claimed damages for wrongful interference and negligence, alleging that the organs had been removed, retained and subsequently disposed of without their knowledge and consent.
Richard Lissack QC and Peter Skelton (instructed by Clarke Willmott & Clarke) for the claimants; Sally Smith QC, David Hart QC and Owain Thomas (instructed by Hempsons) for the defendants.
Held, awarding damages in negligence on one of the claims but dismissing the others claims, that doctors could owe a duty of care to a mother after the death of her baby; that the practice of not warning parents that a post-mortem might involve the removal and subsequent retention of an organ could not be justified as a practice to be adopted in all cases since it might breach that duty of care; but that, where the claimants had no right of burial and possession of organs lawfully removed at post-mortem and retained, no action lay for wrongful interference with the body of the child.
(WLR)
No comments yet