Narrative Conclusion
Introduction
1. I have been asked to produce a narrative conclusion to supplement the Senior
Coroner’s conclusion contained in the Record of an Inquest into the death of Mrs
Patricia Irwin.
2. On the evening in question Mrs Irwin was working in her role as a Highways
Maintenance Inspector. That day she had visited several maintenance sites along the
A31 dual carriageway and nearby highways. When the incident occurred, she was
inspecting the site on the A31 around four miles east of Winchester where there are
roadworks due to road resurfacing.
3. At approximately 20.30 hours Mrs Irwin was standing on the hard shoulder of the A31
when a car driven by Mr Simon Thomas collided with her at a speed of
around 65 miles per hour. The collision caused catastrophic injuries to Mrs Irwin and
her cause of death was recorded as traumatic brain injury.
The inquest
4. The Senior Coroner had the power to empanel a jury to reach the conclusions
absence of any clear required by this inquest. At the outset of the process an application was made by Mr
policy criteria
Thomas’ legal representatives for the inquest to be held with a jury. It was decided
we’re not going to give that there was insufficient reason to empanel a jury in this case. The Senior
you a jury bc there
were no exceptional Coroner had regard to the Winchester Coroner’s Office policy which states: ‘Where
circumstances, but we there is no statutory obligation to empanel a jury, there will only be sufficient reason
haven’t really done
any thinking about to do so in exceptional circumstances. What amounts to exceptional circumstances is
why (it’s up to our
discretion, according
left to the discretion of the Senior Coroner’. Our policy has generally been to call juries
to us) and we’re not when the deceased is a public sector employee. It was determined that there were no
going to tell you why.
exceptional circumstances here, particularly as Mr Thomas was to blame for
failure to show a the incident. And breach of Sec 10(2)(a) CJA 2009
comprehensible chain
of reasoning !
‘phrased in such a way as to determine any question of liability’
The evidence
5. I have considered the witness statements of Mr Thomas and other witnesses including
two road users and three highways maintenance workers. I also note the report filed
by Winchester City Council which states that they have launched an investigation into
the services provided by Roadway Ltd. The Council has contracted with Roadway for
the company to provide highways services including road maintenance and
repair works. The report states: ‘the Council has serious concerns as to whether
Roadway is discharging its agreed functions. In particular, we have seen evidence
that highways, including the A31, are not being gritted to combat ice, contrary to
government guidance…’ The incident in question occurred on a cold evening where
the temperature was approximately minus two degrees Celsius.
Mr Thomas’s defence
6. This tragic incident has attracted a degree of press interest. I have considered the
hundreds of letters received by the Coroner’s Office from concerned members of
Considering irrelevant reasons
the public who are appalled that there have been no prosecutions in relation to Mrs
Irwin’s death.
Conclusion and reasons
7. There is no doubt that the circumstances of Mrs Irwin’s death were harrowing. The
impact from Mr Thomas’ car caused severe injuries to her head and body and the
accepted medical opinion states that she died ‘almost immediately’. I find that the
collision was the sole cause of Mrs Irwin’s death which has been recorded as an
accidental death.
and not also murder?
8. On the day in question Mrs Irwin was simply doing her job, and she cannot have
foreseen what would happen to her. Notwithstanding, her job did frequently place her
on the hard shoulder of fast-moving highways, and we know that drivers can be
reckless. Just two years ago my sister was killed in a road traffic accident and the driver
hmm
responsible was convicted of death by dangerous driving. In this case, I am surprised
that Mr Thomas was only convicted of careless driving which is surely little
More consideration of
irrelevant factors recompense for Mrs Irwin’s family. Considering all of the evidence in the inquest, I
find that Mr Thomas was to blame for Mrs Irwin’s death. Should it be so inclined to
breach of Sec 5(3)(a)
CJA 2009 further investigate this incident, the CPS would surely have a good case to
prosecute Mr Thomas for an offence linked to causing Mrs Irwin’s death.
Signature of coroner (and jurors): S Patel
Sonja Patel, Deputy Coroner, on behalf of the Senior Coroner
