lOMoARcPSD|1317039
CASE NOTE.docx.docx - case note
LLB (University of London)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Sanaya Khan (
[email protected])
lOMoARcPSD|1317039
CASE NOTE
STUDENT REFERENCE NUMBER: 190540324
lOMoARcPSD|1317039
1. CASE NAME:
The Queen V Her Majesty`s Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde
2. COURT AND JUSTICES:
High Court of Justice (Queen`s Bench Division) Divisional Court
Lord Justice Irwin
Mrs. Justice Farbey
His Honor Judge Lucraft QC
3. PARTIES:
Claimant:
The Queen (On the Application of Muriel Maguire)
Defendant:
Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde
Interested Parties:
United Response
Northwest Ambulance Service
Blackpool Victoria Teaching Hospital
Dr. Sarfaraz Adam
Dr. Susan Fairhead
Blackpool City Council
Care Quality Commission
Kenneth Maguire
4. MATERIAL FACTS:
This case concerned Jacqueline Maguire known to all as Jackie a fifty-two
years old lady suffering from down`s syndrome and learning disabilities who shockingly passed away in
hospital. Prior to her death Jackie was a helpless adult who was compfull dependent on staff at her care home
for her everyday care. Jackie was under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). She became unwell and
there was a series of failures by the health care staff, including a failure to make a home visit, failures to triage
properly bring about full history from carers, poor telephonic guidance, poor communication with ambulance
services. Jackie had lived for more than two decades in Litham St Anne`s. According to the post-mortem
examination, perforated gastric ulcer with peritonitis and pneumonia was the cause of Jackie`s death.
Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde, Mr. Alan Wilson opened an
investigation into the Jackie`s death on 3rd of October, 2017. At the inquiry Coroner decided that failures are
accountable to the individual’s actions and did not required the state to be held accountable under Article (2) of
European Conventions of Human Rights (ECHR). Coroner apprehended that there is not sufficient evidence to
achieve that Jackie`s death was due to gross failure by the state to provide medical attention but her death was
from natural causes.
Jackie`s mother, Mrs. Muriel Maguire brought a judicial review demanding
that decision given by the Coroner on the grounds that Article (2) of European Conventions of Human Rights
lOMoARcPSD|1317039
(ECHR) was not assessed at length by the happenings circumstances of Jackie`s death and not to have the issue
of negligence on the basis of insufficient evidence to the jury.
5. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The defendant erred in law by determining at the end of the
evidence that Article (2) no longer applied under Parkinson case,
thereby prejudging a manner that should have been left to the jury.
The Coroner erred in law by determining that the jury should not
be directed to consider whether the neglect should form part of
their conclusion.
6. DECISION:
The judges of the court of law namely, Lord Justice Irwin, Mrs. Justice Farbey, Judge
Lucraft QC dismissed the application filed by Mrs. Muriel Maguire seeking judicial review of the findings
given by the Coroner over the death of Jackie. All the officers of the court, with exception dispersed the
application on the following reasons and upheld the decision of the Coroner.
7. DETAILED REASONINGS OF THE DECISION:
The reasoning for the dismissal of the application
filed by Mrs. Muriel Maguire are as follows:
In the absence of planned or administrative dysfunction, Article (2) of European Conventions of Human Rights (ECHR)
might be engaged by a single’s death if the state has presumed responsibility for the single’s welfare or society. In
deciding whether the state has presumed responsibility for a single’s safety the court will examine how close was the
states control over the individual. Lord Dyson in paragraph number: 22 of the case Rabone observed that model example
of presumption of responsibility is where the state retarded a single whether in a prison, in a psychiatric hospital, in an
immigration detention center or otherwise. In such state of affairs the degree of control is undoubtedly high.
The recent case law has enlarged the positive duty on the state after criminal justice context as held in the European
Courts of Human Rights decision titled as Osman V United Kingdom [1998] is not in doubt it was titled in the case that
the major reponsibility is on the state to put in place advantageous criminal law provisions together with law
implementation materialistic for the safeguard and the retribution of the crime as Article (2) states that; state is under duty
to abstain from taking life against the law. Another feature of Article (2) is that; state has pragmatic responsibility to take
suitable steps to protect the life of those in its jurisdiction, this latter duty is known as the operational duty.
The touch stone for the state obligation to protect a single is persistent and confirmed by many cases that in absence of
structured dysfunction emerging from a administrative fiasco or a related presumption in a particular case the state will
not be held answerable under Article (2).
As to the obligation to which the state presumed here Jackie was a helpless lady who was under the supervision of state.
In her written submissions, Miss Butler Cole depended on the appointment at the care home and the deprivation of liberty
safeguards in regard of that appointment. She highlighted the proof about Jackie`s dependency on her caretakers and other
professionals in association to a medical treatment and healthcare. However, in oral submissions she acknowleged that
justification of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) under the Mental Capacity Act [2005] is inadequate on its own
to set off the engagement of the Article (2) of European Conventions of Human Rights (ECHR).
lOMoARcPSD|1317039
It was agitated by the judge of the court that person who lacks magnitude to make certain decisions about his/her best
interests and who is therefore subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) under the Mental Capacity Act [2005]
does not automatically fall to be treated in the same way as Lord Dyson`s model example as per the judges view each case
will turn on its own facts.
Where the state has presumed that some magnitude of duty for the well-being of an independent who is subject to
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) are placed in detention in the line between the state duty and individual’s
actions will sometimes be a fine one.
Applying this analysis to the facts of the case, the court concluded that this was not a case in which there had been an
presumption of obligation on the part of the state and the incidents that led up to Jackie`s death was not capable of
indicating systematic failure or dysfunction. The court found that such failings as there may have been were accountable
to individual’s actions and so did not required the state to be called to account. The Divisional Court also found that
Coroner had been entitled there was no individual failing on the part of those involved which could safely be said to be
gross so as to require him to leave a finding to the neglect.
8. RATIO DECIDENDI:
