Legal Developments

The Appeal

The long-awaited hearing at the Court of Appeal finally took place last week, considering my family's application for a Judicial Review of the Coroner's investigation of my mother's death. After the procedural mishaps and the negative judgments in the High Court, signs were much more positive from the outset of the hearing before three of the most senior Lord Justices of Appeal in the country.

Back in September last year, Lord Justice Blake presided over an oral hearing to consider whether our application for a Judicial Review should be granted Permission to be heard. He refused to grant Permission, arguing that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged by the circumstances of my mother's death, and that, even if it was, the inquest had to be 'fundamentally flawed' before a fresh inquest could be ordered.

Without our barrister even having to argue against these two points, the Master of the Queen's Bench Division, who presided over the Appeal, provisionally indicated that Lord Justice Blake was wrong on both counts. This means that, for the first time since my mother died, the judicial system has accepted that the deaths of compulsorily detained mental health patients are subjected to a broad investigation under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Neither the Mental Health Trust nor the Coroner chose to be represented at the Appeal. Having indicated that Permission should have been granted for the Judicial Review to be heard, the next two hours of legal submissions by our family's barrister focused on why the original inquest should be overturned, particularly focusing on why it didn't meet the Article 2 requirements.

The Coroner, Dr. Reid, was roundly criticised for failing to hear key evidence on the policies and procedures in place at the time of my mother's deaths, including the failure of staff to be adequately trained in basic life support. In the absence of lawyers for the Trust or the Coroner, the bench challenged my family's legal submissions by suggesting that, even though the Coroner said that the Human Rights Act did not apply, the inquest may have been substantively compliant with the Article 2 requirements. Our barrister argued not only did it not comply with these requirements, but that it was lacking as a simple inquest.

The Court of Appeal then decided to Reserve Judgement and we are now eagerly awaiting their decision. The judgement, whatever way it falls, will be important in all future cases relating to deaths in mental health institutions. If the Appeal is granted, then a fresh inquest will then have to take place. If it is not, we believe that we have strong grounds for a further Appeal to the House of Lords, though obviously we hope that this is not necessary. Of course, details of the judgment will be posted here as soon as it becomes available.

And, after almost three years since my mother died, we found that that was not the only important development.

Coroners and Justice Bill - House of Lords

On the same day as the Appeal took place, the House of Lords moved onto its second day considering the complete overhaul of the Coroners system which has been outlined in the Coroners and Justice Bill.

In an excellent Amendment tabled by Baroness Murphy, she strongly argued that juries should be called in all cases where the deceased was detained or in the custody of the state.

The current position is that all cases of deaths that occur in custody, and those which potentially have future implications for the health and safety of the public, must be heard before juries. Yet, in manoeuvres which have been roundly condemned by human rights campaigners and charities alike, the Government wishes to make juries in these cases further limited, by arguing that not all require such a high level of public scrutiny.

Hitting back at this appalling viewpoint, Baroness Murphy spoke about my mother's death in detail, arguing that the public cannot have confidence in the state if the remote figure of coroner is allowed to hear such inquests on their own. Supported by a number of other members in the House, the central importance of juries in our judicial system was passionately argued for over an hour.

Yet, the Government refused to accept that such cases should be heard before juries, arguing that it was sufficient to leave such decisions up to Coroners themselves, and suggesting that the most important consideration was cost. Lord Davies and Lord Bach, the two Ministers responsible for the Bill, simply refused to respond to the points about the moral case for juries to be called.

In light of this, Baroness Murphy withdrew her Amendment, biding time to make an even stronger case for juries based on real figures, to be tabled again at the next opportunity when the Bill is being considered. I am currently working hard on producing a further briefing for members of the Lords to deal with these issues, to strengthen the case for juries to be called, and to highlight the complete inadequacy of the Government's position on this issue.

I shall, of course, put the briefing up here and will be asking for your support again in contacting members of the Lords to argue for this Amendment to the Bill. My family and I strongly believe that the deaths of people with mental illness have not been taken seriously enough - as my mother's case has shown - and that enough is enough.

Once again, thanks again to those of you who continue to stay engaged in this important campaign for justice.