![AC-2024-LON-003241 - [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
MR JUSTICE FOXTON
Between :
THE KING (on the application of BHUPINDER IFFAT RIZVI) | Claimant |
- and - | |
HM ASSISTANT CORONER FOR SOUTH LONDON | Defendant |
- and - | |
(1) THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE FOR THE METROPOLIS (2) ROBERTO FLORIO (3) THOMAS HORNER | Interested Parties |
Matthew Stanbury and Naomi Mcloughlin (instructed by Ison Harrison Solicitors) for the Claimant
Cathryn McGahey KC (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) for the Defendant
Cecily White (instructed by Metropolitan Police Service) for the First Interested Party
Patrick Gibbs KC and Kevin Baumber (instructed by JMW Solicitors LLP) for the Second and Third Interested Parties
Hearing date: 4 November 2025
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 17 November 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
.............................
Mr Justice Foxton:
- Heading
- Introduction
- The legal context to the Inquest
- Article 2 inquests
- The roles of the Coroner and the Jury
- Challenges to a coroner’s Galbraith decision
- The course of the Inquest
- The Ruling
- The application for an extension of time
- The applicable legal principles
- Analysis and conclusion
- Is there a reasonable excuse for the delay?
- The importance of the issues
- The prospects of success
- Would an extension of time cause substantial hardship or prejudice to the defendant or any other party or be detrimental to good administration?
- Mrs Rizvi’s Grounds
- Did the Coroner ask herself the right question?
- Did the Coroner inappropriately gloss the test for an Article 2 operational breach?
- The criticism of the Coroner’s findings as to the “off the record” conversation and the offer of a lift
- Ground 2
- The authorities on the treatment of causation in coroner’s inquests
- What acts or events were “in play” at the Inquest?
- Ground 2: conclusion
- Conclusions