Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2003
Timestamp: 2020-02-21 15:53:22
Document Index: 596674797

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 2', 'Art 2', 'Art 2', 'Art 2', 'Arts 2', 'Art 2', 'Arts 2', 'Art 2', 'Art 2', 'Art 6', 'Art 2', 'Art 3']

R (Amin) v Home Secretary 1
Issue: Whether the provisions of Art 2 ECHR required a public inquiry into the death of a young Asian man killed by a known racist cell-mate who had a severe personality disorder.
R (Sacker) v HM Coroner for West Yorkshire 15
Issue: Whether Art 2 required a coroner to allow a jury to consider adding a rider of neglect in relation to a suicide in custody.
R (Davies) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham 21
Issue: Whether the jury had been properly directed as to the meaning and availability of a neglect verdict in circumstances involving the apparent exercise of clinical judgment; whether the jury should have been asked to consider whether system neglect had contributed to the death of a prisoner; whether a fresh inquest should be ordered.
R (Davies) v HM Deputy Coroner for Birmingham (CA) 27
Issue: Whether a new inquest should be held where a jury had not, but should have, been asked to consider whether system neglect had contributed to the death of a prisoner.
R (Stanley) v HM Coroner for Inner North London; and PC Fagan and Insp Sharman (as interested parties) 38
Issue: Whether evidence of the deceased’s previous convictions and of the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute police officers responsible for the death should be admitted, and the procedure for considering so doing; whether independent expert firearms evidence should be admitted; whether reasons should be given for refusing to leave certain verdicts to the jury.
R (Stanley) v HM Coroner for Inner North London; and PC Fagan and Insp Sharman (as interested parties) (Costs) 47
Issue: Whether the coroner and interested parties should be liable for the successful claimant’s costs.
Lewy v Barnet Magistrates’ Court 51
Issue: Whether permission should be granted to seek judicial review of the decision of a Justices’ Clerk to refuse to issue a summons against a coroner for misconduct in public office.
R (Fatima Haqq) v (1) HM Coroner for Inner West London (2) Alfia Haqq 52
Issue: Whether the coroner’s refusal to release the body pending determination of to whom it should be released was lawful; whether a “second wife’s” claim for the release of the body was valid.
R (Mulholland) v HM Deputy Coroner for St Pancras 60
Issue: Whether a coroner’s refusal to adjourn an inquest was lawful; whether the impact of fresh evidence was such that it was necessary and desirable in the interests of justice that there should be another inquest
R (Khan) v Secretary of State for Health 70
Issue: Whether, in the circumstances of the death of a child while under medical care before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998, the state’s obligations under Art 2 ECHR were engaged; whether it was necessary for the discharge of the state’s adjectival obligation under Art 2 ECHR to provide funding for the deceased’s family to be represented at the inquest
David Glass (1) and Carol Glass (2) v UK (Admissibility Decision) 85
Issue: Whether, in relation to the provision by a hospital of treatment and care to the severely disabled and critically ill first applicant, a child, there were admissible complaints under Arts 2, 6, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR.
R (Rowley) v Director of Public Prosecutions 96
Issue: Whether the DPP was correct not to bring a prosecution for gross negligence manslaughter; the elements of the offence and the relevant factors in the decision-making process.
R (Aineto) v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove; Aineto v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove 108
Issue: Whether where a moving refuse lorry ran over a pedestrian there were reasonable grounds to suspect that death had been caused by an accident, notice of which was required to be given to the Health and Safety Executive by virtue of s8(3)(c) Coroners Act 1988; whether a fresh inquest with a jury should be ordered.
Hurst v HM Coroner Northern District of London; (1) Metropolitan Police and (2) LB Barnet (as interested parties) 112
Issue: Whether a coroner’s obligation to consider whether the state’s investigative duties under Art 2 ECHR had been complied with existed where the death in question occurred prior to the Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force.
Musumeci v Attorney General of New South Wales & Anor 120
Issue: Whether relevant material could be withheld from an interested person at the start of the inquest for reasons relating to the integrity of the investigation into the death; whether procedural fairness required early disclosure of material to a person possibly implicated in the death.
R (Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis) v HM Coroner Southern District of Greater London; and (1) PS Kenward, (2) PS Thomas, (3) PS Darbyshire, (4) Former PS Meek 132
Issue: Whether in a case of suicide in police custody there was sufficient evidence to leave to the jury a finding of neglect.
Menson v UK (Admissibility Decision) 146
Issue: Whether, in circumstances where a man suffering from mental illness was killed in a racist attack, the police investigation into the murder breached Arts 2, 6, 8, 13 and 14 ECHR.
Finucane v UK 157
Issue: Whether the failure to hold a proper investigation into the murder of a solicitor, where the involvement of state agents was suspected, breached Art 2 ECHR.
Barbara Francis v UK (Admissibility Decision) 171
Issue: Whether the procedural obligations of Art 2 were breached in the circumstances; whether a decision to hold a disciplinary hearing into a doctor’s actions in private breached the Art 6 rights of the complainant.
Margaret Younger v UK 176
Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 2 ECHR where a young remand prisoner, who was a drug addict, hanged himself after requesting but not being seen by a doctor
McGlinchey and Others v UK 191
Issue: Whether there was a breach of Art 3 ECHR when a prisoner died in custody after a period of unexplained vomiting and weight loss
R (Bloggs 61) v Home Secretary 206
Issue: Issue: Whether it was lawful to remove a police informant from the Protected Witness Unit into the mainstream prison system after he had received assurances from the police that he would remain in the PWU
Barbara Francis v UK (Admissibility Decision)
David Glass (1) and Carol Glass (2) v UK (Admissibility Decision)
Finucane v UK
Hurst v HM Coroner Northern District of London; (1) Metropolitan Police and (2) LB Barnet (as interested parties)
Lewy v Barnet Magistrates’ Court
Margaret Younger v UK
McGlinchey and Others v UK
Menson v UK (Admissibility Decision)
Musumeci v Attorney General of New South Wales & Anor
R (Aineto) v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove; Aineto v HM Coroner for Brighton and Hove
R (Amin) v Home Secretary
R (Bloggs 61) v Home Secretary