Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note

    Uploaded by

    ماتو اریکا
    This case concerns the death of Jacqueline Maguire, a woman with Down syndrome and learning disabilities who lived in a care home. Her family questioned whether her death could have been prevented. The coroner held an inquest but decided that Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life, was not engaged. The coroner also refused to put the question of gross medical negligence to the jury. Jacqueline's mother sought judicial review. The High Court upheld the coroner's decisions, finding no evidence of systemic failure in Jacqueline's care and deferring to the coroner's judgment about the sufficiency of evidence put to the jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note

    Uploaded by

    ماتو اریکا
    56 views4 pages
    This case concerns the death of Jacqueline Maguire, a woman with Down syndrome and learning disabilities who lived in a care home. Her family questioned whether her death could have been prevented. The coroner held an inquest but decided that Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life, was not engaged. The coroner also refused to put the question of gross medical negligence to the jury. Jacqueline's mother sought judicial review. The High Court upheld the coroner's decisions, finding no evidence of systemic failure in Jacqueline's care and deferring to the coroner's judgment about the sufficiency of evidence put to the jury.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    sample-case-note-2-case-note

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case concerns the death of Jacqueline Maguire, a woman with Down syndrome and learning disabilities who lived in a care home. Her family questioned whether her death could have been prevented. The coroner held an inquest but decided that Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life, was not engaged. The coroner also refused to put the question of gross medical negligence to the jury. Jacqueline's mother sought judicial review. The High Court upheld the coroner's decisions, finding no evidence of systemic failure in Jacqueline's care and deferring to the coroner's judgment about the sufficiency of evidence put to the jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    56 views4 pages

    Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note Sample Case Note 2 - Case Note

    Uploaded by

    ماتو اریکا
    This case concerns the death of Jacqueline Maguire, a woman with Down syndrome and learning disabilities who lived in a care home. Her family questioned whether her death could have been prevented. The coroner held an inquest but decided that Article 2 of the ECHR, which protects the right to life, was not engaged. The coroner also refused to put the question of gross medical negligence to the jury. Jacqueline's mother sought judicial review. The High Court upheld the coroner's decisions, finding no evidence of systemic failure in Jacqueline's care and deferring to the coroner's judgment about the sufficiency of evidence put to the jury.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    lOMoARcPSD|1317039

    Sample Case note 2 - case note

    Legal system and method (University of London)

    StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university


    Downloaded by Sanaya Khan (sanayasifat@gmail.com)
    lOMoARcPSD|1317039

    CASE NAME AND CITATION :

    R(on the application of Muriel Maguire) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Blackpool and
    Fylde [2019] EWHC 1232 (Admin)

    COURT AND JUDGES :

    High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Divisional Court: Lord Justice Irwin, Mrs Justice
    Fabrey and His Honour Judge Lucraft QC (sitting as a Judge in the High Court)

    PARTIES :

    Main Parties: Mrs Muriel Maguire (mother deceased Jacqueline Maguire) and Senior
    Coroner of Blackpool and Fylde

    Interested Parties:

    i. United Response ( first interested party)

    ii. Northwest Ambulance Service (second interested party)

    iii. Blackpool Victoria Teaching Hospital ( third interested party)

    iv. Dr Sarfaraz Adam and Dr Susan Fairhead (fourth interested party)

    MATERIAL FACTS :

    This case concerns the death of Jacqueline Maguire in a Blackpool Victoria Teaching
    Hospital. Jackie is a down syndrome woman and had moderate learning disabilities which
    meant she could not leave on her own without being supervised (at 2). She was sent to the
    care home under the authority of Blackpool City Council. At the care home, she is deprived
    of her liberty as she is locked in the room. This deprivation is justified under the Mental
    Capacity Act 2005 where this is for her own safety and security(at 10). She had been living in
    the care home for over 20 years since 1993 (at 3). This case focuses on the chain of event that
    happen before her death at Blackpool Victoria Teaching Hospital. Her family members were
    concerned that her death can be avoided. So an inquiry on Jacqueline Maguire death has been
    held by the Senior Coroner to find out the manner and the cause of her death (at 4).

    Downloaded by Sanaya Khan (sanayasifat@gmail.com)


    lOMoARcPSD|1317039

    At the Preliminary stage, the senior coroner decided that Article 2 ECHR had been
    engaged in relation to whether the state can be blamed for the faults of the relevant parties
    that took part in the chain of event (at 25). In the case of R (on the application of Parkinson) v
    Senior Coroner of Kent, High Court has laid down guidelines on the scope of the state’s duty
    under Article ECHR. This decision has been released by high court 5 days before the inquest
    take place. Referring to the decision of this case, the senior coroner decided to change their
    decision and held that Article 2 ECHR was not engaged (at 26).

    The next issue is the question of neglect of medical authorities. The coroner decided
    that there was insufficient evidence on this matter and refuse to put the question before the
    jury (at 6). Therefore the jury found that Jacqueline’s death was due to natural causes (at 6).
    Jacqueline’s mother, Mrs Maguirel has filed a judicial review application to challenging the
    two grounds of the coroner decision (at 7).

    QUESTION OF LAW/ISSUE :

    1) Whether Article 2 in terms of the statute positive obligations arise or have been engaged
    on the fact ? (at 7)

    2) Whether the decision not to put the question of gross negligence to the jury an error? (at 7)

    DECISION :

    The High Court agreed and upheld the Coroner’s decision on both grounds and unanimously
    dismiss the claimant application for judicial review (at 49,58 and 60)

    DETAIL REASON FOR THE DECISION :

    High court agreed with the coroner’s decision that Article 2 had not been engaged
    with the facts of the case because all the events that happen on that day is an individual
    negligent. The court decides that the claimant failed to prove there is systematic failure or
    dysfunction (at 45). Under the positive obligation, article 2 has an additional duty or known
    as an operational duty. In Osman v UK, the court held that authorities need to take preventive
    steps to protect an individual’s life (at 30). Case law had expended the authority duty beyond
    the enforcement of criminal law to include cases of death as a result of egregious lack of

    Downloaded by Sanaya Khan (sanayasifat@gmail.com)


    lOMoARcPSD|1317039

    medical treatment. However this operational duty must not impose an impossible or
    disproportionate burden on authorities (at 31).

    In Lopez v Sausa, the court held that the state’s obligation in relation to health care
    and medical treatment is only on regulatory (at 37). The meaning of regulatory is a failure in
    the system. Parkinson also has set out that individual negligence may incurred individual
    liability and will not generally engage Article 2. Even though state has an operational duty
    under article 2 ECHR, it can only be called if there is an issue with regulatory. It can be
    concluded that as far as the court concern, there is no evidence failure in the system.

    Next, High Court reluctant to disturb the test adopted by the coroner in deciding
    whether there was sufficient evidence of neglect because there is 2 option in deciding which
    test to adopt. First is evidence or individual failings where each breach the threshold of gross
    neglect or the test on an aggregated basis. The next option is where the accumulative of
    individual training (regardless of whether each individual failing could have reached the
    threshold of regret).

    In this case, the coroner chooses the first option as he felt that it would not be
    appropriate to leave the accumulate failings to the jury (at 51). The reason why coroner didn’t
    direct jury on the neglect issue because there were numbers of gaps and grey areas in the
    causation evidence which will cause the jury to make speculation in whether Jackie’s death
    can be prevented (at 54). Usually, court would not give over evidence towards the jury as the
    jury has no specific knowledge on some issues of law.

    High Court didn’t want to disturb this test because the coroner had the advantage of
    seeing the witnesses, but High Court didn’t have the same advantage (at 58). Therefore the
    coroner must have been doing their best to come out with the decision

    RATIO DECIDENDI :

    1) The government will only be liable under Article 2 ECHR in relation to health care and
    medical treatment if there are problems with regulatory issues. (at 37)

    2) Court has the right to choose either to leave some matters on the deliberation of the jury or
    not especially if it will lead to confusion for the members of the jury.(at 54)

    Downloaded by Sanaya Khan (sanayasifat@gmail.com)

    You might also like