Case name and Citation

R(Maguire) V Her Majestry’s Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Flyde [2019,EWHC 1232 (Admin)]

Court and Judges

High Court of Justice England & Wales,Queen’s Bench Division,Divisional Court,Admin.

Judges-Lord Justice Irwin ,MRS Justice Farbey,His Honour Judge Lucraft QC

Appellant
R(On the application of Muriel Maguire)

Respondent
Her Majesty Senior Coroner for Blackpool & Flyde

Interested parties
Unites Response;

North West Ambulance Service;

Blackpool Victoria Teaching Hospital;

Dr Sarfaraz Adam;

Dr Susan Fairhead;

Blackpool City Council;

Care Quality Comission;

Kenneth Maguire

Material Facts
Jaqueline Maguire(Jakie)who had Down’s syndrome and moderate learning difficulties was in a
care home in Lytham St Anne’s since 1993 and died in hospital of a perforated ulcer at the age
of 52 on 22 February 2017.Jakie had been deprived of her liberty under the Mental Capacity Act
2005 to the extent that she was prevented from leaving the home without supervision.As she
(Jakie) lacked capacity to make her own decisions so she was totally depended on the staff for
her day to day care.For the foregoing reasons,Jakie was subjected to DOLS(Deprivation of
Liberty Safeguards) or a one year standard authorization.
There are several evidence that there were presence of communication faillings as well as lacks
of taking necessary steps by the individual medical professional without knowing Jakie’s
previous medical history.Following RV(Parkinson),the Coroner held that Article-2 will not be
engaged in matter of individual negligence by the medical professionals.The Coroner’s decision
was challenged in the High Court by Jakie’s mother.

Question of Law/Issues
1.Has the claimant contends that the defendant erred in law by determining at the end of the
evidence that article 2 no longer applied under Parkinson?

2.Has the Coroner erred in law by determining that the jury should not be directed to consider
whether neglect should form part of their conclusion?

Decision
The Judicial Review was unanimously rejected.The Coroner’s inquest was not illegal.

Detailed Reasons for the Decision

According to Parkinson ,if the sate taken the responsibility to protect patient’s lives,the failure
of professional medical treatment will not engage article 2 of the ECHR .To protect lives,the
State follows some particular steps (Lopes de SousaFernandes v Portugal(2018) 66 EHRR
28,para 186).In this case R(Parkinson) was followed by Coroner and the earlier case for the
same type of issue was (Powell v United Kingdom (2000) 30 EHRR CD 362).Death which are
naturally caused will not be engaging article 2 ,it will only engage if the State failed to protect
the person (R(Tyrell)V HM Senior Coroner County Durham and Darlington and Ministry of
Justice [2016] EWHC 1892 (Admin),para 33)However,in (Osman v United Kingdom),the State
has a positive obligation to take reasonable steps to save the lives of people living in the sate
and also responsible to save people from criminal activities. Additionally they are held to
safeguard those lives who are at criminal risk (article 2) . In this case,two major principles came
into effect in the High Court,case of systemetic of regulatory failure,first of all article 2 might be
considered if the state had taken some responsibility for the safety of individuals (Mitchell v
Glassgow City Council [2009] AC 874,para 66).Secondly,court will look into the matter of State’s
control over on the individual.Lord Dyson held that the assumption of responsibility is of a
‘paradigm example’ in the matter of detention in prison or psychiatric hospital or in
immigration detention care.Systemetic failures were found in Jakie’s case .The responsibility
assumed by the state towards Jakie’s care subjectedto DOLS under the 2005 Act.Paradigm
example did not apply in her case which was observed by Lord Dyson.Jakie’s detention was
based on her medical condition.The responsibility assumed by the state was not quite strict .
The Coroner did not find any neglect issue here.The definition of neglect came from (R v HM
Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe,ex parte Jamieson[1995] QB 1).Here it was
stated that while it is a matter of neglect,the jury will consider two steps .first one is that an
evidence of gross failure and the other one is the neglect had direct connection with the
person’s death.According to (Galbraith) the jury will consider the issue of neglect which was
held by the coroner in Jakie’s case.Ther earlier decision of (R(Secretary of State for Justice) v
HM Deputy Coroner for the Eastern District of West Yorkshire [2012]EWHC 1634(Admin)) was
also taken into account.