EWJ June 61 2025 web - Flipbook - Page 24
Determining the Scope of an
Inquest: Latest on Speculative Causes
By Gill Weatherill, Partner, Will Pickles, Senior Associate and Claire Anderson, Senior
Associate - www.dacbeachcroft.com
Coroners have a wide discretion to decide whether or not events preceding a death fall within
the scope of an inquest, but how should they go about making that decision?
The recently published case of Sharon O'Brien v HM Assistant Coroner for Sefton, Knowsley
and St Helens helps shed light on this by focusing on the distinction between 'possible' and
'speculative' links between the event in question and the death.
included within the scope of the inquest because, had
Mr McMahon been arrested and prosecuted for
breaching the restraining order, it is possible that he
would not have been in Linda's flat on the day she
died and the death would not have occurred.
The Coroner decided, however, that there was no
'coronial causation' linking the police's conduct with
events resulting in the death because, to meet the causation test, the event or conduct in question needs, on
the balance of probabilities, to have more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death
(i.e. it needs to have made an actual or material contribution to the death). In this case, the Coroner
found, it simply could not be known - and was therefore pure speculation - whether arresting Mr McMahon at the time of the reported domestic violence
incident would have prevented him being present at
Linda's flat over a month later when she died (or indeed whether his presence there was causative of the
death). As such, the Coroner concluded that events
surrounding the reported domestic violence incident
and the attending police being unaware of the restraining order would not require extensive investigation at the inquest and mention of those would be
just for background purposes and information.
What was the inquest about?
The deceased, Linda O'Brien, died after falling from
the fourth floor window of her flat.
Approximately 7 months prior to this, a man Linda
had previously been in a relationship with, Alan
McMahon, had been sentenced to 22 weeks' imprisonment for assaulting Linda. He was also made subject to a restraining order, preventing him from
approaching, contacting or communicating with her
for 5 years.
However, about a month before Linda's window fall
death, the police had received an anonymous report
of a domestic violence incident at her flat. When they
attended, Mr McMahon was at the flat with Linda, but
she was calm and said she did not know why the police had been called. None of the police officers who attended were aware that Mr McMahon was the subject
of a restraining order, despite checking on relevant
police databases. Their evidence was that, had they
known he was in the flat in breach of the restraining
order, they would have arrested him. Although the
existence of the restraining order subsequently came
to light and steps were being taken towards prosecuting him for breaching this, Linda's death intervened.
The deceased's family challenged this decision by way
of judicial review, arguing that the Coroner had unlawfully limited the scope of the inquest by finding
there was no causal link between the death and the
acts or omissions of the police.
Emergency services were alerted to Linda's fall from
the window by Mr McMahon, who was the only other
person in the flat with her at the time. Post mortem
showed evidence of assault injuries sustained prior to
her exiting the window. Mr McMahon was later sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for multiple
breaches of the restraining order and for theft. An
accusation of murder was not proceeded with.
What did the High Court decide?
In summary, the High Court found in favour of the
Coroner by ruling that, whilst is it is possible that, if
Mr McMahon had been arrested for breach of the restraining order before Linda's death, he might have
been in prison on the date of her death and it is possible that her death would not have occurred, whether
he would have been in custody on that date is "entirely
speculative". It was not enough to show that a particular event, or particular conduct, deprived the deceased of an increased chance of life (following the
explanation in Tainton).
What was the Coroner's decision on scope?
It is important to flag first that Article 2 was found not
to be engaged in this case, meaning there was no requirement here for an enhanced investigation looking at the wider circumstances of the death, as would
be the case for an Article 2 inquest.
It was nevertheless argued on behalf of the deceased's
family that the police's conduct in failing to identify
the existence of the restraining order at the time of
the reported domestic violence incident should be
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
22
JUNE 2025
