Court of Appeal

Published December 11, 2007

Regina (Paul and Others) v Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London

Before Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Latham and Lord Justice Dyson

Reasons November 28, 2007

A coroner could not read to the jury hearsay evidence in documentary form which he considered likely to be disputed where the maker of the statement was unable to attend.

The Court of Appeal so stated when giving reasons for dismissing on November 26, the appeal of the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London against a decision of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Aikens) ([2007] EWHC 2721(Admin)) allowing in part the application for judicial review by Jean and Giselle Paul and the Ritz Hotel, Paris of a decision by the Assistant Deputy Coroner of Inner West London on November 7, 2007.

At the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Mr Dodi Fayed, the coroner had ruled that rule 37 of the Coroners Rules (SI 1984 No 552) did not restrict his common law power to admit into evidence hearsay statements in documentary form of witnesses, who could not be found or who could not be compelled to attend, by reading them out to the jury.

The Divisional Court held, inter alia, that the statements could not be admitted under rule 37, that evidence in the statements could not be admitted by reading them but had to be admitted by calling a witness and that it was for the coroner to decide on who was called to adduce the evidence and the scope of any examination by interested parties.

Mr Ian Burnett, QC and Mr Jonathan Hough for the coroner; Mr Richard Keen, QC and Mr Robert Weekes for Mr and Mrs Paul; Mr Michael Beloff, QC and Mr Tom de la Mare for the Ritz; Mr Edmund Lawson, QC and Mr Duncan Macleod for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

LORD JUSTICE WALLER said that the appeal was not about the admission of hearsay evidence but was about the way in which that hearsay evidence could be placed before the jury.

The claimants contended that so far as documentary evidence was concerned, it could only be put in evidence directly by the coroner if it fell within rule 37. The coroner contended that rule 37 did not deprive him of his power to put hearsay evidence before the jury by any method he chose, including simply by reading from a document; alternatively rule 37 should be read purposefully to allow him to read statements without calling a witness.

In his Lordship’s judgment, so far as documentary evidence was concerned rule 37 was a complete code as to when documents could be put directly in evidence without calling a witness. It covered all documents both controversial and uncontroversial.

It did not allow the admission of hearsay evidence in documentary form directly by the coroner which he considered likely to be disputed even where the maker was unable to attend.

Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Latham agreed.

Solicitors: Field Fisher Waterhouse; Stuart Benson & Co, Reading; Barlow Lyde & Gil-bert; Mr Edward Solomons, Victoria.

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers