“I am, of course, happy to provide examples of how individuals have progressed over the three years if required, but would like to stress that in my opinion as the person with the overall responsibility for the pastoral care of our students at Notre Dame, the risk of formally and publicly asking the students involved questions that they have been asking themselves for three years is far greater than any perceived benefit that could be gained. There is, in my opinion as the person who worked with the majority of the most affected children, a major risk that work done over the previous three years could be undone, setting the young people and their families back to where they were in 2014.”
“With the benefit of hindsight, there is an opportunity to ask young people to reflect on any concerning behaviour or statements made by their friends and classmates in person or through social media and to share and discuss them with a trusted adult. 12.3.4 I have deliberated on this issue at great length. Will’s friends and classmates did not share his social media postings or tell a member of school staff about the knives in Will’s bag on that Monday morning. I have highlighted that a lack of awareness of their significance at the time may account for this but also the possibility of misplaced loyalty or a fear of retribution for some of the children. 12.3.5 The question ‘how can children be encouraged and supported to share concerns with trusted adults?’ goes beyond the scope of this review, but perhaps locally, through the LSCB [Leeds Safeguarding Children Board], research can be undertaken on children and young people’s confidence and approach to disclosure of this type, and indeed this is likely to be a subject worthy of better understanding nationally.”
“11.1 The submission made on behalf of Mr Maguire is that relevant pupils should be called to give evidence as to why they did not report the matters revealed to them either on Facebook or in the period before the incident. It was contended this had not been fully explored in the interviews conducted by the police. It was necessary to establish what they understood to be the school rules on ‘whistleblowing.’ This was opposed by Mrs Maguire’s sisters (themselves teachers with several decades of experience) who were concerned about the effect on pupils who might be called to give evidence. LCC submitted that the facts regarding the morning of the incident were clear due to the investigation which had been carried out and did not require a duplication of inquiry. As there was no evidence suggestive of a ‘bad atmosphere’ or toxic culture at the School it was not necessary to investigate something which was not there. 11.2 The Coroner concluded that it was important to be proportionate and fair to all involved in this tragic incident, when setting the bounds of the inquiry. As it was often said ‘no-one is on trial at an inquest’ there was a legitimate concern that calling potentially vulnerable young people to question them in a way which may connote blame on their part for not having reported matters within their knowledge, ran the risk of exacerbating the trauma which all IPs recognised had been experienced by the pupils involved. The information which the pupils could provide had been assembled in the investigation carried out by the police (albeit that further questions could always be asked). The balance of benefit and risk was such that, in his judgment, the risk of inflicting psychological harm on the pupils to be called was foreseeable, whereas the benefit was small. As the pupils were now at least 10% older, their recollections of their own reasoning, impressions and decisions in April 2014 are likely to be different in the wake of the tragedy and their subsequent developing maturity. On top of this, the relevance to an Inquest focused upon how the deceased came by her death (and possibly – but not certainly - the circumstances in which this occurred) did not necessitate pupils being called. It was sufficient to extract relevant material from their police interviews. The Coroner accepted that it was pertinent to establish what the pupils understood to be the School rules relating to ‘whistleblowing.’ This could (in so far as it was possible to establish the position in April 2014, rather than now) be established by calling one or more pupils who had no involvement in the incident, from the 950 children at the School.”
“The inquest should hear evidence as to the students’ understanding of the school rules relating to weapons in school and whistleblowing. The students who had been shown a knife by Mr Cornick on the morning of the incident must explain who they informed of this. If they had taken no action, they can be questioned as to why they had taken no action.”
“It is the duty of the coroner as the public official responsible for the conduct of inquests, whether he is sitting with a jury or without, to ensure that the relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated. He is bound to recognise the acute public concern rightly aroused where deaths occur in custody. He must ensure that the relevant facts are exposed to public scrutiny, particularly if there is evidence of foul play, abuse or inhumanity. He fails in his duty if his investigation is superficial, slipshod or perfunctory. But the responsibility is his. He must set the bounds of the inquiry. He must rule on the procedure to be followed.”
“It is for the coroner conducting the inquest to decide, on the facts of a given case, at what point the chain of causation becomes too remote to form a proper part of his investigation.”
“It is clear from the authorities to which I have referred that a coroner has to form a judgment on how wide the inquiry should go. In that sense he has a ‘discretion’ as to the scope of the inquest. But his duty is to investigate fully, fairly and fearlessly the matters falling within the scope of the inquest as he has judged it should be.”