R (on the application of Hurst) (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolist (Appellant)
HOUSE OF LORDS
OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT
IN THE CAUSE
R (on the application of Hurst) (Respondent) v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant)
 UKHL 13
LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL
LORD RODGER OF EARLSFERRY
BARONESS HALE OF RICHMOND
LORD BROWN OF EATON-UNDER-HEYWOOD
The contention that Middleton now applies to all inquests
Buxton LJ, who gave the leading judgment in Gingi, recognised the relevance of the principle to the present case and, as already stated, rejected this limb of the respondent's argument. He was right to do so.
The third issue
Similar views are to be found in the other speeches. As, indeed, Neill LJ was later to observe in R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Ex p NALGO (1992) 5 Admin LR 785, 798, only Lord Templeman thought that article 10 was "a relevant matter to be taken into account." A series of earlier Court of Appeal decisions had been to the same effect: R v Chief Immigration Officer, Heathrow Airport, Ex p Salamat Bibi  1 WLR 979, Fernandes v Secretary of State  Imm AR 1; Chundawadra v Immigration Appeal Tribunal  Imm AR 161.
A little later he added that even if the statute was silent,
Lord Scarman in In re Findlay  1 AC 318,334 approved those two passages in Cooke J's judgment as "a correct statement of principle."
(Section 7(6) provides that "legal proceedings" in section 7(1)(b) includes "proceedings brought by or at the instigation of a public authority.")
"(i) Whether by virtue of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, sections 16 and 11(5)(b)(ii) of the [Coroners Act 1988] are to be read and given effect so as to be compatible with Article 2 of the Convention [on Human Rights].
(ii) Alternatively, whether irrespective of the Human Rights Act 1998 being applicable to the discharge of his statutory duties, in exercising his discretion under section 16(3) of the 1988 Act, the coroner was required to take into account the United Kingdom's international obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.
(iii) If the inquest is only resumed in accordance with (ii) above, what does section 11(5)(b)(ii) of the 1988 Act require the scope of the inquiry to be."