In R (On the Application of Henshaw) v HM Assistant Coroner for Derby And Derbyshire [2025] EWHC 357 (Admin),Trinity Inquest barrister, Alex Littlefair successfully acted on behalf of the Claimant in a Judicial Review where the High Court examined the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of a prisoner in custody.
The case concerned the death of Ms. Georgina Henshaw following sudden cardiac arrhythmia while in custody at HMP Foston Hall. Her mother, the Claimant, challenged (1) the Coroner’s directions to the jury, (2) the decision to withdraw admitted failings from the jury and (3) the decision not to call a community GP witness.
Mr. Justice Jay gave consideration to the interpretation of Tainton and the newly published Guidance for Coroners on the Bench:
“The Chief Coroner’s interpretation of Tainton is not that admitted failings must be recorded in the Record of Inquest but that there is a power to do so in circumstances where that failing cannot be established on the evidence to have been causative. In the circumstances of the instant case, it is unnecessary for me to reach a definitive conclusion on the issue of duty versus power, although I would incline to the view that there may be situations where the power effectively translates into a duty because there is only one reasonable exercise of it in public law terms. That may well be the correct interpretation of Tainton, inasmuch as if failings are admitted, there is no possible reason for excluding them from account” (emphasis added).
This ruling is likely to be cited by those acting on behalf of families contending that possible causes should (particularly where there is an admitted failing) be part of the record of Inquest.
Mr Justice Jay also held that:
- any failings in the summing up with respect to natural causes as a short form conclusion did not matter on the facts of the case (§71 of the judgment)
- the Coroner unlawfully fettered her discretion when deciding not to call a community GP (§75 of the judgment).
A new Inquest was not ordered as Mr Justice Jay found at §76:
“this judgment sets out the position very fully and declaratory relief will be ordered. I would refuse any further relief, in particular a quashing order, in circumstances where no reasonable jury could reach more favourable conclusions from the Claimant's perspective than I have done.”
Alex is recognised in the leading legal directories:
"A very talented and dedicated junior who is well-liked by clients"
Inquests & Inquiries - Legal 500 2025