![AC-2024-LON-003241 - [2025] EWHC 3014 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Mrs Rizvi’s Grounds
Mrs Rizvi’s Grounds
Ground 1
Mrs Rizvi’s first ground is as follows:
“The Coroner erred in law by determining the matters to be left to the jury according to whether there was sufficient evidence that the substantive Article 2 ECHR duty had been breached, rather than whether such a breach was arguable, and added an unnecessary and impermissible gloss to the threshold for assessing whether such a breach had occurred or was arguable”.
This ground was developed by reference to three complaints.
- 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