HM Senior Coroner for Northumberland v HM Assistant Coroner for Northumberland [2026] EWHC 2074 (Admin)

Case No AC-2025-LON-000415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
NCN: [2026] EWHC 2074 (Admin
Venue The Royal Courts of JusticeDate Wednesday, 17 June 2026
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Before
LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLEMR JUSTICE HILLIARD
Between
HM SENIOR CORONER FOR NORTHUMBERLANDApplicantHM ASSISTANT CORONER FOR NORTHUMBERLANDRespondent
MR A USTYCH appeared for Applicant. for THE RESPONDENT did not appear and was not represented.
JUDGMENT
Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JEWeb: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
[1]His Majesty's senior coroner for Northumberland ("the senior coroner") is the claimant. His Majesty's assistant coroner for Northumberland ("the assistant coroner") is the defendant.[2]The senior coroner applies by Part 8 claim form, dated 15 January 2026, issued on 29 January 2026, for an order under Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988 relating to the inquest touching on the death of Michael Paul Hargreaves ("the deceased") which inquest was held on 20 December 2024 before the assistant coroner.[3]The Solicitor General has authorised the senior coroner to make the present application by fiat dated 8 December 2025.[4]The senior coroner brings this application at the request of John Peter Hargreaves, who is the deceased's brother.

The facts

[5]We take the facts from the witness statement, dated 15 January 2026, filed by the senior coroner in support of his application.[6]The deceased was 78 years old. His wife, sadly, died on 25 May 2024. Prior to and after her death, the deceased expressed suicidal ideation to medical professionals. The deceased did not consent to the sharing of any information and, prior to his death, the deceased's family were not aware that he had expressed suicidal ideation.[7]On 30 May 2024, the deceased was the driver of his blue Vauxhall car. He was not wearing a seatbelt. He drove into a wall and sustained fatal injuries. He was the only occupant of the vehicle and was wearing his nightwear at the time. He was pronounced dead at the scene.[8]A police officer attended his home and found his house keys hanging in the lock on the outside of the door. The house was clean and tidy. There was a handwritten note on the kitchen table, a set of contact numbers in the hallway and a passport upstairs belonging to the deceased.[9]The inquest into the deceased's death opened on 24 June 2024 and proceeded with all evidence being read on 20 December 2024. One piece of evidence was a statement from John Peter Hargreaves.[10]The assistant coroner included these findings in Box 3 of the Record of Inquest. "[The deceased] was unable to cope following the death of his wife and expressed an intention to take his own life to family and professionals. On 30 May 2024, he drove his motor vehicle intentionally into a wall, failing to negotiate a junction. He was not wearing a seatbelt. It was late at night and no one else was in the vicinity. There was evidence in his home of notes in preparation for death. He sustained severe injuries from the collision and died at the scene …"[11]In Box 4, the assistant coroner recorded the conclusion of suicide.[12]On 24 December 2024, John Peter Hargreaves raised a concern about the assistant coroner's findings. John Peter Hargreaves asserted that he had made it clear in his evidence that he was not aware of the deceased's intentions to take his own life. John Peter Hargreaves wanted Box 3 amended to remove the reference to the deceased's intentions being known to the family.

Senior coroner's submissions

[13]The senior coroner asserts that there was no evidence before the assistant coroner on which he could safely find that the deceased's family were aware of the deceased's suicidal intentions, and that the words "family and" should not have been included in Box 3 of the Record of Inquest.[14]The senior coroner submits that the inclusion of these words had caused the deceased's family anxiety and that it was desirable in the interests of justice that the public record should be corrected to remove these words and to ensure that the determination accurately reflected the factual position.

Remedies sought

[15]The senior coroner seeks as a primary remedy the quashing of the words "family and" with the remainder of the Record of Inquest retained. This is to follow the guidance in Shipsey v HM Senior Coroner for Worcestershire [2025] EWHC 605 (Admin). In the alternative, the senior coroner seeks an order quashing the original inquest and directing a fresh investigation.[16]The reason for seeking either remedy is that the factual conclusion stated by the words "family and" in Box 3 of the Record of Inquest was not properly open to the assistant coroner on the evidence before him and it is in the interests of justice to ensure that the determinations contained in the Record of Inquest are factually correct and reflective of the evidence adduced at the inquest.

Conclusion

[17]This matter proceeds by consent, as reflected in the consent order dated 13 January 2026, signed by the senior coroner, the assistant coroner and John Peter Hargreaves. We are satisfied that the words "family and" should not have been included in Box 3 of the Record of Inquest. There was no evidence before the assistant coroner to suggest that the family was aware of the deceased's suicidal ideation.[18]There are, in our judgement, two questions for the court in determining whether to accede to the senior coroner's application in the light of the consent order. The first is whether this case meets the threshold in section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988. It is only if that threshold is met that the court can intervene. The provision is in the following terms:
“13. — Order to hold investigation (1) This section applies where, on an application by or under the authority of the Attorney-General, the High Court is satisfied as respects a coroner (“the coroner concerned”) … (b) where an inquest or an investigation has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that an investigation (or as the case may by, another investigation) should be held.” (b) where an inquest or an investigation has been held by him, that (whether by reason of fraud, rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, insufficiency of inquiry, the discovery of new facts or evidence or otherwise) it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice that an investigation (or as the case may by, another investigation) should be held.”
[19]We accept that the inclusion of the words "family and" at Box 3 of the Record of Inquest was an error. That error amounts in this case to an irregularity in the proceedings or, possibly, comes within the catch-all word "otherwise" at the end of the phrase in (in section 13(1)(b)). The error has caused the family of the deceased some understandable anguish, and it renders the content of Box 3 factually incorrect. We consider that a correction is necessary and desirable in the interests of justice. Accordingly, the threshold test in section 13(1)(b) is met.[20]The second question for the court relates to the appropriate form of relief. That question is governed by section 13(2), which provides as follows: “(2) The High Court may— (a) order an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to be held into the death either— (i) by the coroner concerned; or (ii) by a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner in the same coroner area; …; and (c) where an inquest has been held, quash any inquisition on, or determination or finding made at that inquest”. (a) order an investigation under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to be held into the death either— (i) by the coroner concerned; or (ii) by a senior coroner, area coroner or assistant coroner in the same coroner area; …; and (c) where an inquest has been held, quash any inquisition on, or determination or finding made at that inquest”.[21]In Shipsey, the Divisional Court (in a judgment of Hill LJ, with whom Lady Justice Macur agreed) concluded that section 13(2)(c) of the Coroners Act 1988, as it had been amended to the above form by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013, SI 2013/1874, article 2(5)(e), conferred on the court the power to quash a determination or finding, or a part of a determination or finding, set out within the Record of Inquest; further, that the court could do that without quashing the entire Record of Inquest (see paragraphs 97 to 100 of Hill LJ’s judgment). The senior coroner invites the court to do precisely that in this case, ie to strike through the words "family and" in Box 3 of the assistant coroner's Record of Inquest so as to cure the defect and arrive at an accurate record.[22]We see no reason to depart from the view taken in Shipsey that the court has a power to strike out findings or parts of findings in the Record of Inquest; indeed, we have not been addressed on the matter which is the subject of agreement between the parties to this application as well as John Peter Hargreaves.[23]The simplest and most efficient remedy in this case is to quash the offending words but to retain the rest of the Record of Inquest without those words. That achieves the outcome sought by all without the need for further inquest, and it ensures that the Record of Inquest is factually correct.[24]We, therefore, grant the application of the senior coroner. We order that the words "family and" in Box 3 of the Record of Inquest are quashed, with the remainder of the Record of Inquest retained. _________ 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