JUDGMENT IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT EVIDENCE

A short passage in the judgment of Mrs Justice Lang DBE in Daniel -v- St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) highlights the point that the conclusions in other proceedings are not evidence in a civil trial.

KEY POINTS

  • The narrative verdict at an inquest was not admissible evidence for the purpose of civil proceedings.

THE CASE

The claimants were bringing actions for damages under the Human Rights Act following the death of James Best in prison. The death was of natural causes, however it is alleged that there was delay and a failure to treat which amounted to a breach of Articles 2 and 3.

THE JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUES OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CORONER’S COURT
  1. The Inquest took place on 14 September 2011 and 18 to 22 March 2013. It was recorded that JB died of natural causes at 1650 on 8 September 2011. The cause of death was recorded as acute left ventricular failure and coronary artery atheroma and thrombosis. The jury gave a narrative verdict.
  2. The Inquest verdict was admitted in evidence, as part of the record of events, but both counsel agreed that the narrative verdict of the jury as to the circumstances of the death were not to be treated as evidence of the truth of their contents, applying the general principle that judgments in other proceedings are not admissible evidence: see Phipson on Evidence (18th ed.) at 43-78; Hollington v F. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd [1943] KB 587. The evidence called at the Inquest differed from the evidence adduced in this trial, which could potentially make a material difference to the conclusions which this court could properly reach. Moreover, an inquest verdict is not intended to form the basis of a finding in a civil claim – section 10(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 provides that a determination at an inquest may not be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of civil liability. In light of the above, counsel for the Claimant did not pursue her initial submission that the findings of the Inquest ought to be given particular weight as they were part of the investigative procedure required under Article 2.
  3. Both parties had notes of the proceedings (no transcript had been requested). The Defendants’ expert witnesses were provided with a set of notes, and Ms Hunt quoted from them in her report. It was agreed therefore that I ought to see the notes to which she expressly referred. Other than that, it was agreed that the notes should be disregarded.
  4. Witness statements provided to the Inquest were referred to during the evidence with the leave of the court in accordance with the provisions of section 6 CEA 1995.”

RELATED POSTS

Other aspects of the case are discussed in Fatal Accident Law at Fatal Incidents: Human Rights and the “Indirect Victim”. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: