HM Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihill v Cheryl Jeyes [2026] EWHC 1628 (Admin)
[1]This is the judgment of the court. Background[2]By an application dated 1 October 2025 supported by Details of Claim dated 18 September 2025, His Majesty's Senior Coroner for Birmingham and Solihull (the Senior Coroner), applies, pursuant to section 13(2)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988, to quash the inquisition on the inquest into the death of Mark Andrew Billington (the Deceased) held on 8 December 1984, and, pursuant to section 13(2)(a) of the Coroners Act 1988, to direct a fresh investigation and inquest into that death.[3]The application is made on the grounds that the discovery of new facts and evidence since the original inquest significantly calls into question the open verdict returned by the jury at the original inquest, such that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that another inquest should now be held.[4]The Solicitor General authorised the Senior Coroner to make the application by fiat dated 29 September 2025. The application is supported by Ms Cheryl Jeyes, Mark’s sister. She wrote an open letter, dated 13 September 2025, confirming her agreement to that course. We understand that Ms Jeyes also speaks for her father, who is now elderly and frail. Ms Jeyes attended court with her husband this morning. We offered her and her family our sincere condolences in this troubling case.[5]This application is not opposed. Facts[6]On 1 September 1984, Mark Andrew Billington, who had just turned 15 years old, went missing. He had not been seen since the late morning, when, shortly after completing his paper round, he deposited £8 in wages from his paper round into his bank. Mark was understood to have collected his bicycle from the shed at his home and ridden off. It was out of character for Mark to be missing and his parents very soon believed that he had been abducted.[7]On 11 November 1984, around ten weeks after his disappearance, poachers found Mark's body hanging from a tree in a wooded copse some distance from his home. The ligature was a knotted blue nylon rope that did not belong to Mark's family. Although there was no note left, nor any evidence that Mark was depressed, nor any other explanation for why he might take his own life, the senior investigating police officer, a DCI Lamont, believed that Mark's death was a suicide. In his report to the coroner, and in his evidence at the original inquest, DCI Lamont set out his view that this was a death from suicide, stating that there was no evidence to the contrary.[8]On 8 December 1984, HM Coroner for Birmingham, Dr Richard Whittington, held an inquest into Mark's death. At the material time, suicide had to be established to the criminal standard before that verdict might be returned at an inquest. At the conclusion of that inquest, an open verdict was returned by the jury, who recorded that the evidence did not fully or further disclose the means by which the cause of death arose. This reflects the inference, which must be drawn, that the inquest jury were not satisfied that the required standard of proof had been met by any of the available verdicts.[9]The police incident room was closed shortly after the 1984 inquest.[10]West Midlands Police completed a case review of Mark's death in October 2000. This was known as "Operation Firelight". That review led to the determination in January 2001 that Mark's death should be treated as a murder. A murder inquiry was then commenced.[11]The murder investigation ran until November 2002, when the case was placed back into the unsolved cold-case position.[12]So far as this application is concerned, an overview statement has been provided by Detective Inspector Church of the West Midlands Police dated 24 April 2025. He sets out the sequence of events leading to the review and murder investigation. He notes that despite the arrest of suspects, no charges were brought following that investigation. At the conclusion of that investigation, the investigating officer recorded his view first, that Mark did not take his own life; and, secondly, that third parties had been involved in Mark’s death in some way. The last time any active police investigation was conducted into Mark's death was late 2002. Whilst his death has been the subject of review in the years since, the material position has not changed and the homicide case remains unsolved by West Midlands Police. West Midlands Police have indicated that prosecutions relating to the deceased's death are unlikely. Fresh evidence[13]The Senior Coroner is now aware of fresh evidence in this case. That fresh evidence includes the following. First, there is an expert report from a forensic scientist based on available photographs of the deceased's body and images of the ligature. That expert's view is that the nature of the knots in the ligature points to third-party involvement and that it is extremely unlikely that Mark had hanged himself. Secondly, there is evidence of additional sightings of Mark and other youths on the day of his death, which sightings were not available at the original inquest. Thirdly, there is fresh evidence in respect of a person who was interviewed during the initial inquiry in 1984, who was heard to say that he and his two school friends had been involved in the death of someone; that person and others were arrested in 2002, although no charges were brought against any of them.[14]The Senior Coroner is also aware of the possibility that there may be other additional witness evidence available from the following: first, a police officer, who suggests that one of the witness statements presented at the original inquest had been significantly changed; secondly. the estate manager, who oversaw the land where Mark's body was found, who is alleged to have reported suspicious activity in that area at around that time; and, thirdly, a friend of the deceased's older brother, who reports seeing Mark on the afternoon that he disappeared.[15]The Senior Coroner submits that, if this evidence, or any part of it, had been available to the original jury, there is a real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict.[16]We note that some of this fresh evidence is the product of researches by a local journalist, Ms Reynolds, who wrote to the Coroner with the family’s support in March 2025 asking for a fresh inquest. Conclusion[17]We have had regard to section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 and to the guidance given in HM Attorney General v HM Coroner of South Yorkshire, West and Another, [2012] EWHC 3783, 2012 Inquest Law Reports 143.[18]In light of developments since the original inquest and the emergence of fresh evidence touching on Mark's death, it appears that the substantial truth about how Mark met his death was not revealed at the original inquest. Unless a fresh inquest is now held, that evidence will not be explored in depth and Mark’s family will never know how the deceased came by his death. His family should have the opportunity to examine such evidence as is now available.[19]In our judgement, it is necessary and desirable, in light of the fresh evidence, that a fresh inquest should be held to examine the circumstances of Mark’s death.[20]The threshold requirement in section 13(1)(b) is met. We therefore quash the original inquest, pursuant to section 13(2(c), and direct a fresh inquest, pursuant to section 13(2)(a) of the 1988 Act. ------------ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk