Lady Arden explains that neither the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (the Act) nor the European Convention on Human Rights requires any particular standard of proof for conclusions at an inquest [2,12]. There was case law to the effect that conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing should be reached on the criminal standard [60, 70]. A coroners inquest is not, however, a criminal proceeding [2]. The Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 (the Rules) contain a form which must be used to record the result of an inquest [15]. Note (iii) to this form explains that the standard of proof for short form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing is the criminal standard and that for other conclusions the civil standard applies [16]. Adopting Wilson LJs reasoning in R (LG) v Independent Appeal Panel for Tom Hood School [2010] EWCA Civ 142; [2010] PTSR 1462 Lady Arden holds that the Rules could prescribe standard of proof. The issue is whether the effect of Note (iii) is to require a particular standard. The Ministry of Justice (the MoJ) consulted on the Rules in draft [24]. The MoJs response document explained that case law had established the standard of proof and the Rules could not change the law [26 27]. Lady Arden holds that that response is relevant to interpreting Note (iii) and shows that Parliament did not intend to change or codify the law as it understood it to be [42]. A footnote can lay down a new legal rule (Hunt v R M Douglas (Roofing) [1990] 1 AC 398) but the circumstances of that case were very different [43]. The contrary result in this case would contravene the drafting conventions on which our unwritten constitution depends [44]. On its true interpretation, Note (iii) did not take away the power of the courts to develop the common law [56]. Lady Arden concludes that, consistently with legal principle, the civil standard of proof applies to short form conclusions of suicide [68]. The previous case law is not binding on the Supreme Court and does not identify a good reason against applying the civil standard [70]. To apply different standards of proof for short form and narrative conclusions leads to an internally inconsistent system of fact finding [71]. If a criminal standard of proof is required, suicide is likely to be under recorded [73 74]. Societal attitudes to suicide have changed and the role of inquests has developed to be concerned with the investigation of deaths, not criminal justice [75 81]. Also, certain Commonwealth jurisdictions have aligned the standard of proof applicable in inquests with the standard applicable in civil proceedings [82]. Lady Arden holds that the civil standard of proof also applies to determinations of unlawful killing [93],[96]. There is then consistency between the determinations made at an inquest [96]. In his concurring judgment, Lord Carnwath considers that the Act does not indicate that the civil standard of proof cannot apply a conclusion of suicide [100]. In his view, Note (iii) does not have that effect. The public consultation materials confirm that position [107]. Lord Kerr in his dissenting judgment holds that the criminal standard of proof applies to short form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing [143]. There is no inconsistency caused by a short form and narrative conclusion having different standards of proof [116]. There is nothing untoward in putting suicide and unlawful killing in a special category of verdicts that require proof to the criminal standard [139]. Note (iii) to the form did not attempt to change the law, but confirmed what the existing law was. As a result, the common law rule became a statutory rule [125]. It can only cease to have effect if Parliament enacts a statutory provision to amend or abolish it [126]. The Rules unquestionably established a statutory basis for the application of the criminal standard of proof for short form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing [132]. Lord Reed agrees with Lord Kerr.