Read on Twitter
Now this is something - all inquest findings are on the civil standard, including suicide and unlawful killing. Previously, unlawful killing had to be shown to the criminal standard. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020/46.html 1/
This was a case about suicide, not unlawful killing. The coroner had decided that the jury could not safely reach a conclusion of suicide on the criminal standard - that is, to be "sure". The jury answered questions put to them to state... 2/
that the deceased had a history of mental health problems and, on the balance of probabilities, he intended to commit suicide. The deceased's brother sought to challenge that finding as unlawful on the basis that they had to be "sure" to the criminal standard. 3/
The High Court dismissed the challenge as did the Court of Appeal, and it went to the Supreme Court. The SC's decision was a 3:2 split - more of that in a moment. It held that previous authority showed suicide and unlawful killing had to be found to the criminal standard but 4/
that these decisions showed no good reason against applying the civil standard. Further, it said that different standards of proof for short form / narrative conclusions could result in an inconsistent system of fact-finding. 5/
As to policy (?), it said that suicide would be under recorded if it could be found only on the criminal standard where society's view of suicide had changed and was no mortal sin. Also, inquests had developed to be more extensive investigations into death. 6/
But this was a 3:2 split decision, Lords Reed and Kerr dissenting from Lady Arden, Lord Wilson and Lord Carnwath, where the decision will have real impact. A finding of unlawful killing can result in a stigma, where there are no strict rules of evidence or trial protections. 7/
Also, a finding of unlawful killing can result in a referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions. On the other hand, families may complain that where a jury can find suicide on the balance of probabilities and the family have no legal aid or representation... 8/
It would be more difficult to resist such findings - where they contend that more should be done in places such as prisons, police stations etc to protect detained persons and that self-harm or cries for help are treated as suicide rather than failures by those institutions... 9/
to prevent avoidable deaths. It could also have adverse impact on matters such as life insurance claims. This decision could have major impacts - so that it might be thought that there should have been a 7-judge SC panel rather than the 5-judge panel. 10/
It would be unfortunate for there to be criticism of the decision on the basis that a larger panel could have resulted in a different outcome. END
