AC-2024-LON-003241 - [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)

In the early hours of 20 March 2003, Sabina Rizvi was shot dead as she drove away from Bexleyheath Police Station. Her boyfriend, and a passenger in her car, Mark Williams was also shot. He survived, but sustained a significant brain injury. Paul Asbury has subsequently been convicted of the murder of Sabina Rizvi and the attempted murder of Mark Williams. The assailants who carried out the murder and attempted murder at Paul Asbury’s direction have never been identified, and have yet to face justice.

An inquest into Sabina Rizvi’s death (“the Inquest”) was opened on 25 March 2003, but adjourned pending Paul Asbury’s trial. After Paul Asbury’s conviction, the decision was initially taken not to resume the Inquest, but this was reversed thanks to the concerted efforts of the Rizvi family.

On 12 February 2019, the Senior Coroner for South London concluded that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) was arguably engaged and that the Inquest should be resumed. Senior Coroner for South London’s appointed HHJ Angela Rafferty KC (“the Coroner”) to hear the case, with the Inquest taking place between 4 and 26 March 2024 before a coroner’s jury (“the Jury”). The Coroner is a highly experienced criminal judge who is a Senior Circuit Judge at the Central Criminal Court.

The period between the Senior Coroner for South London’s decision in February 2019 and the commencement of the Inquest was the result of a number of evidential, procedural and administrative complexities, with the result that the Inquest did not begin until 2024.

One issue which was raised at the Inquest was whether the First Interested Party (hereafter “the Police”) had breached the duty owed to Sabina Rizvi under Article 2 of the ECHR, namely the right to life. The issue was whether the Police (and in particular, the Second and Third Interested Parties, Roberto Florio and Thomas Horner), either did appreciate or should have appreciated that Paul Asbury posed a real and immediate threat to Sabina Rizvi’s life once she left the police station, and should have taken steps to mitigate that risk.

At the conclusion of the evidence on 24 March 2024, the Coroner gave a ruling (“the Ruling”) that there was sufficient evidence to establish that there was such a real and immediate threat, but insufficient evidence to leave to the Jury the issue of whether such a risk was or ought to have been known to the Police. The Coroner also found that there was insufficient evidence that there were steps which the Police could reasonably have been expected to take to prevent any risk to Sabina Rizvi materialising. As a result of that ruling, no issue as to the acts or omissions on the part of the Police was left to the Jury.

By this application, Sabina Rizvi’s mother, Bhupinder Iffat Rizvi (“Mrs Rizvi”) seeks permission to challenge the lawfulness of the Coroner’s ruling as a matter of public law, by way of proceedings for judicial review. Mrs Rizvi contends that the Ruling involved two errors of public law:

In order to bring such a claim, Mrs Rizvi must not only establish an arguable case of public law illegality, but she must also obtain an extension of time for bringing the claim. This is because, absent such an extension, applications for permission to bring proceedings by way of judicial review must be brought “promptly; and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose” (CPR r 54.5(1)). In this case, Mrs Rizvi asks the court to extend time from 30 June 2024 to 24 September 2024.

While the claim is brought against the Coroner as defendant, the Police, Roberto Florio and Thomas Horner have been joined to the claim (“the Interested Parties”). The Coroner and the Interested Parties oppose Mrs Rizvi’s application for an extension of time and for permission to seek judicial review.

The judgment addresses the issues which arise under the following headings: