100% found this document useful (1 vote)
216 views3 pagesCoroner Media Ruling - Graham Whelan
This ruling addresses a request from journalist Charlie Moloney for the Record of Inquest regarding the death of Graham Robert Whelan. The coroner emphasizes the principle of open justice but ultimately decides that the family's right to privacy outweighs the request for disclosure, citing the sensitivity of the case and lack of public interest. The coroner concludes that the Record of Inquest will not be disclosed to protect the family's wellbeing.
Uploaded by
Joshua RozenbergCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
216 views3 pagesCoroner Media Ruling - Graham Whelan
This ruling addresses a request from journalist Charlie Moloney for the Record of Inquest regarding the death of Graham Robert Whelan. The coroner emphasizes the principle of open justice but ultimately decides that the family's right to privacy outweighs the request for disclosure, citing the sensitivity of the case and lack of public interest. The coroner concludes that the Record of Inquest will not be disclosed to protect the family's wellbeing.
Uploaded by
Joshua RozenbergCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
/ 3
Inquest touching upon the death of Graham Robert Whelan
RULING ON POST-INQUEST DISCLOSURE
1. This Ruling is in response to a formal written request dated 17th December 2024
made by Charlie Moloney, Freelance Journalist. The formal request follows
exchanges of correspondence between Mr Moloney and my office in October and
November 2024 following the conclusion on 23rd September 2024 of the inquest into
the death of Mr Whelan.
2. The formal request appears only to relate to the obtaining of the completed Record
of Inquest and not for any other document relating to the inquest.
3. I do not disagree with the principle of open justice described in Guardian News and
Media Ltd (2012) and that there should be no fundamental difference between the
application of this principle to inquests heard and concluded in open court and
inquests concluded in writing.
4. In the case of inquests concluded in writing, Chief Coroner’s Guidance 29 is clear in
terms of the opening, announcing and prior public notification of the intention to
conclude in writing. The guidance also indicates the need to ensure fact-based
findings are recorded and it is the practice in this court that a brief findings
document is produced in every case where an inquest is concluded in writing rather
than in open court, in addition to the formal completion of the Record of Inquest.
5. It is my view that Mr Moloney’s application relates not to the general principle of
open justice, with which we appear to be in agreement, but in relation to the specific
balancing exercise that the coroner should apply in relation to any post-conclusion
request for information. This is well described in paragraphs 51 and 52 of Chief
Coroner’s Guidance 25. It is in this context that the views of Mr Whelan’s family
were considered. It has been the view of all Chief Coroners that the family are at the
heart of the inquest process and there will be rare circumstances where the balance
should be in favour of Article 8 family rights over Article 10 freedom of expression
rights.
6. As the formal request is just for the Record of Inquest, I address that request
specifically, however there would be a broader application of my Ruling to other
documents including the findings document created as part of the process of
concluding this inquest.
7. Mr Maloney correctly sets out paragraphs 84 and 85 of Chief Coroner’s Guidance 25
(albeit with his own added emphasis). It is my view that a request for any document,
including the Record of Inquest, after the conclusion of a coronial investigation or
Inquest, falls to be considered by the coroner under Regulation 27 of the Coroners
Investigations 2013 which sets out:
27(1) Any document in the possession of a coroner in connection with an
investigation or post mortem examination must, unless a court or the Chief Coroner
otherwise directs, be retained by or on behalf of the coroner for at least 15 years
from the date the investigation is completed.
27(2) The coroner may provide any document or copy of any document to any
person who in the opinion of the coroner is a proper person to have possession of it.
27(3) The coroner may charge for the provision of any document or copy of any
document in accordance with any regulations made under Schedule 7.
8. Paragraphs 27 to 29 of Chief Coroner’s Guidance 25, particularly, address the matter
of exercise of judicial discretion in all cases of requests for documents. Whilst the
general position is that “members of the media should normally be expected to be
considered proper persons for these purposes” (para 29) the coroner should first take
account of:
- the person requesting the document
- the reason for the request
- the public interest
- the sensitivities of particular passages of evidence
- the need for editing or redaction (if any, bearing in mind this was a public
hearing), and
- other relevant factors
(Para 28)
9. It will be noted that Chief Coroner’s Guidance 25 pre-dates Guidance 29 and in the
case of an inquest concluded in writing there will not have been a public hearing.
Guidance 29 appears to be silent as to treatment of the Record of Inquest document,
so paragraphs 84 and 85 of Guidance 25 appear to continue to provide assistance
when exercising discretion under Regulation 27.
10. Considering the specific formal request:
(a) Mr Maloney appears to be a member of the media;
(b) The actual reason for the request is not stated – it may be with the intention of
public disclosure through one or more articles reporting on the case, it may be
on the basis that the question of disclosure after an inquest in writing has not
been established, it may be for some other reason;
(c) The question of no identified public interest (as opposed to what some members
of the public might be interested to read about) is a relevant factor in deciding
for an inquest in writing in the first place – were that not satisfied then there
should be a final hearing in open court. This is just one of the factors for that
decision, and just one of the factors for a post-inquest disclosure decision. It
seems possibly more likely to be demonstrated in cases where the inquest is
concluded in writing, but each case, and the exercise of discretion in relation to
each request, needs to be considered on its own merits. Here, I maintain that
there is no wider public health benefit, or public learning or safety outcome to be
gleaned from the specific circumstances of the death of Mr Whelan;
(d) In contrast, the sensitivity of the circumstances (which are not set out in this
Ruling) are such that the only likely outcome from publicity is one of damage to
the wellbeing of the remaining family;
(e) Taking measures to safeguard continuing family life would indicate editing or
redaction of the described circumstances so as to render virtually meaningless
any disclosure;
(f) The views of the family and the arguments set out by Mr Moloney have been
considered.
11. Since I regard my decision to be one which is a representation of judicial discretion, I
do not regard the intentions of paragraphs 84 and 85 of Chief Coroner’s Guidance 25
to fetter the exercise of that discretion by mandating disclosure of the Record of
Inquest – albeit that this is probably the outcome of many media requests – and the
position is likely to be much more nuanced now that there is the increasing prospect
of conclusions without a final hearing. I maintain my view that “Media requests for
access to documents will be dealt with under the discretionary powers to disclose in
regulation 27(2)” (Para 39, Chief Coroner’s Guidance 25).
12. In maintaining my view that, in this particular case, I am reasonable in exercising my
discretion not to disclose the Record of Inquest in response to the formal request, I
believe this is required in order to protect the family from any glare of publicity and
that, as such, the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8) should
outweigh the right to freedom of expression (Article 10). This is the minimum
required in order to protect the Article 8 rights in this specific case.
Crispin Butler
HM Senior Coroner for Buckinghamshire
2nd January 2025