Pritchard, R (on the application of) v HM Coroners for Oxfordshire & Anor

Lord Justice Keene:

1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal from a decision of Sullivan J, as he then was, I having refused permission on the papers. We have listened this morning to Mr Tomlinson QC, whose main emphasis has been on the continuing obligation on the United Kingdom to carry out an inquest compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. His submission is that that obligation does not simply disappear with the passage of time so long as it is reasonably practical to carry out such an investigation. In that situation he submits that that in effect overrides any procedural time-limits that may be found, for example, in CPR 54.5.

2. Speaking for myself, I think that Mr Tomlinson may have a difficult struggle in persuading the full court as to the force of this particular argument, particularly where there has been a specific decision as there was here by the coroner on 5 October 2005 not to hold an Article 2 compliant inquest. It is not a case merely of a failure to hold such an inquest, but a positive decision not to conduct one.

3. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the cases to which reference has been made, Cyprus v Turkey [2002] 35 EHRR 30, Silih v Slovenia [2009] ECHR 71463/01, and Brecknell v United Kingdom [2008] 46 EHRR 42, do give a certain amount of fair wind to the arguments which he has presented. As I say, it seems to me that he may have an uphill struggle, but nonetheless the points he raises are important and not entirely straightforward.

4. In those circumstances, I am just persuaded that this is a matter where permission to appeal should be granted. Lord Justice Elias:

5. I agree. Order: Application granted.