The medically-qualified practitioner who carries out a post–mortem examination.The medically-qualified practitioner who carries out a post–mortem examination.The place where a body is taken after its removal from the place of death.The place where a body is taken after its removal from the place of death.(also post-mortem(also postmortem) A medical examination to determine the cause of death, also called an autopsy.) A medical examination to determine the cause of death, also called an autopsy.(also post-mortem(also postmortem) A medical examination to determine the cause of death, also called an autopsy.) A medical examination to determine the cause of death, also called an autopsy.Young Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and underYoung Offender Institution - prison for people aged 21 and underA legal term (Latin for "under judgment") which means that a case is currently at trial or being considered by a judge or court, and so cannot be discussed in public.A legal term (Latin for "under judgment") which means that a case is currently at trial or being considered by a judge or court, and so cannot be discussed in public.Secure Training CentreSecure Training CentreA prosecution for a crime which arises for example from the circumstances of a death.A prosecution for a crime which arises for example from the circumstances of a death.The person who works for the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. and is responsible for making arrangements for the inquest.The person who works for the coronerThe legal official who orders a post-mortem and who is in charge of the inquest procedure. and is responsible for making arrangements for the inquest.The chief legal officer of the United Kingdom. It is a government cabinet position.The chief legal officer of the United Kingdom. It is a government cabinet position.Legal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damagesA payment of money in recognition of certain kinds of suffering or injury, also called damages./compensationA payment of money in recognition of certain kinds of suffering or injury, also called damages..Legal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damagesA payment of money in recognition of certain kinds of suffering or injury, also called damages./compensationA payment of money in recognition of certain kinds of suffering or injury, also called damages..Legal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damages/compensation.Legal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damages/compensation.A term used to describe proceedings in the High Court (such as a judicial review) when they are heard by two or more judges.A term used to describe proceedings in the High Court (such as a judicial review) when they are heard by two or more judges.Usually called clinical negligenceClinical negligence is a legal term for a medical accident where a patient has not received care to a proper standard, and that substandard care has also caused the patient a physical injury. Sometimes also called medical negligence., a legal term for a medical accident where a patient has not received care to a proper standard, and that substandard care has also caused the patient a physical injury.Usually called clinical negligenceClinical negligence is a legal term for a medical accident where a patient has not received care to a proper standard, and that substandard care has also caused the patient a physical injury. Sometimes also called medical negligence., a legal term for a medical accident where a patient has not received care to a proper standard, and that substandard care has also caused the patient a physical injury.The part of the Public Funding scheme that allows a solicitor to give advice for the preparation of an inquest for no cost if the client is on income support.The part of the Public Funding scheme that allows a solicitor to give advice for the preparation of an inquest for no cost if the client is on income support.A form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues.A form of verdict letting a jury give a longer explanation of what they think are the main or important issues.The government's in-house lawyers, who will act for the Prison Service in instructing barristers at inquests.The government's in-house lawyers, who will act for the Prison Service in instructing barristers at inquests.The highest civil court where cases may be heard for the first time. It also hears appeals and conducts judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coroner.s, and supervises magistrates and crown courts.The highest civil court where cases may be heard for the first time. It also hears appeals and conducts judicial reviewA type of court proceeding in which a High Court judge or judges reviews the lawfulness of the way a decision was made or and action was taken by a public body or official such as a coroner.s, and supervises magistrates and crown courts.Public means-tested financial assistance for representation during legal proceedings. It is not available for representation at most inquests. The Lord ChancellorThe cabinet minister in the government responsible for the effective running of the legal system in England and Wales. can grant it in exceptional cases.Public means-tested financial assistance for representation during legal proceedings. It is not available for representation at most inquests. The Lord ChancellorThe cabinet minister in the government responsible for the effective running of the legal system in England and Wales. can grant it in exceptional cases.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.The standard of proof in a civil court cases and for inquest verdicts other than unlawful killing or suicide. In these cases, one outcome need only be more probable than all the others.An inquest into a death involving the state or state agents is required to be, in many ways, more thorough and wide ranging than inquests that do not engage the duties required by article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried outArticle 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention..An inquest into a death involving the state or state agents is required to be, in many ways, more thorough and wide ranging than inquests that do not engage the duties required by article 2Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that the state must not take someone’s life, except in very limited circumstances. The effect of article 2 is that the state has a duty to protect life and to carry out an effective investigation into a death involving the state or state agents. An inquest is normally the way which this is carried out of the ECHRThe European Convention on Human Rights is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights Act 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention..An inquest into a death involving the state or state agents is required to be, in many ways, more thorough and wide ranging than inquests that do not engage the duties required by article 2 of the ECHR.An inquest into a death involving the state or state agents is required to be, in many ways, more thorough and wide ranging than inquests that do not engage the duties required by article 2 of the ECHR.The standard of
proof in a civil court cases and for inquest
verdicts other than unlawful killing or
suicide. In these cases, one outcome need
only be more probable than all the others.The standard of
proof in a civil court cases and for inquest
verdicts other than unlawful killing or
suicide. In these cases, one outcome need
only be more probable than all the others.Those people defined in the Coroners Act 1988 as having a right to ask questions at the inquest. Family members such as parents, children, spouses, civil partners or partners of the person who has died automatically come within the definition and can ask questions at the inquest. Other relatives and those with close relationships may also be regarded as Properly Interested Persons.Those people defined in the Coroners Act 1988 as having a right to ask questions at the inquest. Family members such as parents, children, spouses, civil partners or partners of the person who has died automatically come within the definition and can ask questions at the inquest. Other relatives and those with close relationships may also be regarded as Properly Interested Persons.The organisation responsible for providing
Public Funds for legal work.The organisation responsible for providing
Public Funds for legal work.The highest standard of proof required in legal hearings and needed for returning inquest verdicts of unlawful killing or suicide.The highest standard of proof required in legal hearings and needed for returning inquest verdicts of unlawful killing or suicide.The highest
standard of proof required in legal hearings
and needed for returning inquest verdicts of unlawful killing or suicide.The highest
standard of proof required in legal hearings
and needed for returning inquest verdicts of unlawful killing or suicide.Formerly known as police surgeons, FMEFormerly known as police surgeons, Forensic Medical Examiners or police doctors examine and assess the medical needs of people detained in police custody.s or police doctors examine and assess the medical needs of people detained in police custody.Formerly known as police surgeons, FMEFormerly known as police surgeons, Forensic Medical Examiners or police doctors examine and assess the medical needs of people detained in police custody.s or police doctors examine and assess the medical needs of people detained in police custody.The DPP is a government-appointed legal officer who is the head of, and responsible for, the Crown Prosecution ServiceThe CPS is responsible for deciding whether or not there is enough police evidence to undertake a criminal prosecution for a general criminal offence (e.g. manslaughter) both before and in some cases after the inquest, and whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest..The DPP is a government-appointed legal officer who is the head of, and responsible for, the Crown Prosecution ServiceThe CPS is responsible for deciding whether or not there is enough police evidence to undertake a criminal prosecution for a general criminal offence (e.g. manslaughter) both before and in some cases after the inquest, and whether or not a prosecution is in the public interest..PRESS RELEASE – For immediate release 8 February 2012
Hospitals must ensure that they take appropriate steps to prevent voluntary psychiatric patients from taking their own lives, according to a landmark judgment handed down today by the Supreme CourtSince 1 October 2009 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has taken over the judicial functions of the House of Lords. It is the court of last resort and highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom.. The unanimous ruling, which has been welcomed by leading mental health and human rights organisations, held that Pennine Care NHS Trust had a duty under article 2 of the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHR is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention. to protect the right to life of Melanie Rabone, and failed in this duty when she took her own life in April 2005.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of Mind said:
Today’s judgment recognises that a positive duty is owed towards patients with mental health problems at times when they are most at risk of harm. The law now applies whether or not a patient has been formally detained. Now it is clear that in times of crisis everyone will have the strongest protection that the law can offer.
Emma Norton, Liberty’s Legal Officer said:
This landmark human rights judgment means that voluntary patients in psychiatric care will finally get the same legal protection as sectioned patients. Hospitals rightly acknowledge their serious duties to detained people – why should those who have asked for help be any different?
Jodie Blackstock, Director of Criminal and EU Justice Policy at JUSTICE added:
With all the scepticism currently surrounding the European Convention on Human RightsThe ECHR is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe, incorporated into UK law as the Human Rights ActThe Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament that incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. 1998. All Council of Europe member states including the UK have signed the Convention., this case demonstrates what a vital role it has in protecting the rights of the most vulnerable in society. In this case the Supreme CourtSince 1 October 2009 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has taken over the judicial functions of the House of Lords. It is the court of last resort and highest court of appeal in the United Kingdom. has not only acknowledged that through the Convention the state holds a responsibility for those in its care to which there is a real and immediate risk of death, but when it fails in that duty, parents should be entitled to vindicate their loss also.
INQUEST’s Co-Director, Deborah Coles said:
INQUEST welcomes the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling that psychiatric patients are owed a positive duty of protection under human rights law. This must go hand in hand with an investigation and inquest process that ensures deaths in psychiatric care are independently and robustly scrutinised. This would not only enable families to find out what happened to their relatives but also ensure lessons are learned to help prevent deaths in the future.
Notes to editors
1. In November 2011 the Supreme Court heard the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust – a case with potentially far reaching benefits for psychiatric patients. Judgment was handed down today.
INQUEST, JUSTICE, Liberty and Mind intervened in the case in the Supreme Court. The organisations were legally represented, pro bono, by Paul Bowen and Alison Pickup of Doughty Street Chambers and Saimo Chahal of Bindmans LLP.
2. Patients on psychiatric wards are at a particularly significant risk of suicide – for many it is the very reason for their admission.
In 2008 the House of Lords heard the case of Savage v South Essex NHS Trust in which INQUEST, JUSTICE, Liberty and Mind intervened. The Court held that hospitals owed a duty to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, such as Carol Savage, to prevent them from taking their own lives. It was a landmark case that recognised that where a psychiatric patient is compelled to be in hospital, the hospital authorities have a positive duty to safeguard them from taking their own lives.
However, the law did not give the same protection to informal (or “voluntary”) patients. For people who have experienced mental illness and self harm and for those who work closely with them, this seemed to be a glaring anomaly. Informal patients on psychiatric wards may be at just as much risk of suicide as detained patients. Yet the NHS Trust argued that they were not owed the same positive duty under the Human Rights Act because they were there by ‘choice.’
Today’s Supreme Court judgment means hospitals must ensure they take reasonable steps to safeguard the right to life of mental health patients in their care – regardless of whether they are detained or not – in circumstances where the authorities know or ought to know that there is a “real and immediate risk” to their life.
3. This case was brought by the parents of a 24 year old woman called Melanie Rabone, who had been admitted to the hospital as an emergency patient following a suicide attempt and was undergoing treatment for severe depression as an informal patient. There was a note on file that if Melanie tried to leave, she should be assessed under the Mental Health Act with a view to detaining her. Despite this, and against the wishes of her parents, she was granted leave from the ward. Shortly afterwards she took her own life. The Trust acknowledged that it had been negligent but denied that it owed her a direct, positive duty under the Human Rights Act to protect her.
4. INQUEST is the only organisation in England and Wales that provides a specialist, comprehensive advice service on contentious deaths and their investigation to bereaved people, lawyers, other advice and support agencies, the media, parliamentarians and the wider public.
5. JUSTICE is an all-party law reform organisation committed to access to justice, human rights and the rule of law. It is the British section of the International Commission of Jurists.
6. Liberty is an independent non-party political body whose principle objectives are the protection of civil liberties and the promotion of human rights in the UK.
7. Mind is the leading mental health charity in England and Wales. We provide advice and support to empower anyone experiencing a mental health problem. We campaign to improve services, raise awareness and promote understanding. We’re currently working to put people at the heart of mental health crisis care.
