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

Fecha: 17-Nov-2025

What acts or events were “in play” at the Inquest?

What acts or events were “in play” at the Inquest?

95.

It is important when considering this ground to consider the issues which had crystallised by the end of the evidence and submissions at the Inquest:

Submissions were made to the Coroner as to the issues to be left to the Jury.

ii)

CTI identified three key issues as having been explored during the course of the Inquest:

Whether the Police deliberately notified Paul Asbury and/or others of the whereabouts of Mark Williams?

Whether the Police inadvertently notified Paul Asbury and/or others of the whereabouts of Mark Williams?

Whether the Police knew or ought to have known that an attack would or might take place and whether steps could or should have been taken to prevent it?

iii)

On the second of those issues, CTI explored the issue of whether Paul Asbury was independently aware of Mark Williams’ presence at the police station. Counsel referred to the third issue by the shorthand “the Article 2 breach”.

iv)

So far as the Rizvi family are concerned, they identified three factual matters which it is said should have been left to the Jury “as they arguably appear to have caused or contributed to Sabina’s death”, which I have set out at [38] above.

96.

These were the only “acts or omissions” of the Police “in play” when the Coroner gave her Galbraith ruling and they were all addressed:

The Coroner found (in a conclusion which has not been challenged) that there was no case sufficient to go to the Jury that Roberto Florio’s conversation with Paul Asbury was “causative in any way of the death of Ms Rizvi” ([16]-[17]).

ii)

The “entire plan to harm Williams represented a significant escalation in the criminality of Paul Asbury that the police could not have fathomed on the information available that night” ([42]).

iii)

The Coroner noted at [33] that Leading Counsel for the family “in oral submissions accepted that the decision to bail [Mark Williams] is not subject to challenge and the police had no power to detain either [Mark Williams] or Sabina for their own protection” ([33]). That account of the course of the Inquest is not challenged on this application for judicial review, and is confirmed by my review of the transcript.