Why is unlawful killing banned in uk

The principle of stare decisis requires that all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts - certainly not the other way round.

The decisions of other coroners cannot be deployed to persuade the High Court or even a fellow coroner in a different inquest to tread a new path, rather than to follow established and binding case law on Article 2.

Read more Arguments about the application of Article 2 ECHR remain one of the most taxing legal issues in the coronial jurisdiction.

In Morahan the Divisional Court has very helpfully examined Art 2 in detail, providing a summary guide to the recent key cases on Art 2 in the context of the death of a voluntary psychiatric in-patient from an accidental overdose when on approved leave from hospital. Nevertheless, in this recent Judicial Review case, the High Court have felt the need to remind coroners of the important principle in coronial law sadly without any reference to Mr Cage that correlation is not proof of causation.

The fact someone lived in a place where asbestos was present was not sufficient to establish that their fatal mesothelioma was caused by inhaling fibres from that asbestos. More is needed before a Coroner can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that a potential exposure to asbestos has more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to a death.

That the deceased was possibly exposed to asbestos at a particular address, and that asbestos is very often the cause of the mesothelioma that killed them cannot justify an inquest conclusion that asbestos exposure caused the death.

In this strongly worded dismissal of a s. A fresh inquest cannot be justified simply to allay concerns of a member of the bereaved family, particularly where a reinvestigation would cause unwarranted distress to another. When a family member raised suspicions of foul play — albeit with no real evidence in support - the Senior Coroner positively supported the application to the Attorney General for a fiat to apply to quash his documentary inquest into a mesothelioma death.

The Divisional Court have, however, now roundly dismissed the subsequent s. Not only because of the lack of any evidence of the foul play being alleged, but importantly also noting that:. The principles of open justice and transparency are fundamental to our justice system. They must be cherished and protected as vital to preserve the rule of law. However, a simple legislative oversight at the start of the pandemic has meant that, whilst most other courts increased their accessibility to the public by giving access via remote video platforms, [1] the Coroners Courts became more closed and secretive.

All public, including accredited media representatives, have remained banned from watching any online broadcasts of coronial proceedings over the past twelve months. This absurd position arose when the hastily passed Coronavirus Act made provision for four new sections to be inserted into the Courts Act which allow public participation in criminal, civil and family court hearings conducted by video link, [2] but unfortunately confirming the view that Coroners Courts [3] are the forgotten relatives of the rest of the justice system the broadcasting of coronial proceedings was overlooked and so wholly omitted from the Coronavirus Act With a stroke this unintentional oversight has meant that for the past year neither the public nor accredited journalists have been able to watch any inquest proceedings unless they have been able to persuade a friendly coroner to let them walk into their socially distanced courtroom.

Why did they claim that there was nothing new in the film, when this is the first ever reconstruction and analysis of the longest inquest in British legal history? And when to take just one of many examples it highlights the apparent discrepancy between evidence given under oath by Sir Robert Fellowes the Queen's private secretary and Diana's brother-in-law , who said he was on holiday during the period before and after Diana's death, and entries in the newly published diaries of Alastair Campbell which suggest that he was overseeing Diana's funeral arrangements?

And why, three years on, is most of the UK press still unwilling to accept the verdict of the inquest jury, which decided that the Alma tunnel crash was not an accident but an "unlawful killing" the coroner having denied them the option of "murder" , and that unidentified "following vehicles" not the paparazzi, as was incorrectly reported had been a principal cause? What the British press writes does not greatly matter, because over the next few months, people all around the world will have the chance to see the film, and to form their own judgements.

Everywhere except Britain, that is, because as things stand, I am legally prevented from screening the film in the UK. That's not primarily because of fears about libel, as has been suggested by some journalists although much of the information that we have unearthed about Prince Philip will shock many viewers , but because my film has been deemed by lawyers to be in contempt of court, since it openly questions the impartiality of a coroner who had sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen, yet was sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, presiding over a case that involved the monarchy.

Furthermore, it dares to look at why he repeatedly refused to call senior members of the royal family to the inquest, despite Diana having written a sworn note explicitly stating that her husband was planning an "accident" to her car a note, incidentally, which the Metropolitan Police did not reveal to the press and public for six years, or the French police who first investigated the crash.

Saying this explicitly is, it seems, against the law. This isn't just a whinge from a thin-skinned director, piqued by a handful of negative reviews. We are living in a time when oppressive judges routinely prevent the British press from publishing information of genuine public interest, and my film has fallen foul of that same authoritarian repression. Whatever journalists may think about Diana's death, surely they should always be in favour of the disclosure of information.

Unlawful Killing, directed by Keith Allen and funded by Diana's partner Dodi Fayed's father, Mohamed Al Fayed, was screened at Cannes last year, though it was not part of the official festival.

It alleges that "dark forces" within the British establishment worked to cover up the true details of Diana's death in Producers admitted last year that lawyers had warned them to make 87 cuts if they wanted to show the film in Britain, but the makers had hoped to show the film in the US and other territories to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the deaths of Diana and Dodi in a Parisian tunnel.

Unfortunately, insurers have baulked at the prospect because US distributors might have faced litigation through their UK offices. This proved impossible to secure.