IN THE BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON CORONER S COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF ELLIOTT ALSTON RAYMOND JOHNSON.

Transcription

1 IN THE BEDFORDSHIRE AND LUTON CORONER S COURT IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF ELLIOTT ALSTON RAYMOND JOHNSON Ruling on Scope 1. I am HM Senior Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and have to decide the proper scope of the inquest touching the Elliott Alston Raymond Johnson who died on 15 September 2015 when he was struck by a train in Sandy, Bedfordshire and died as a result of multiple injuries. Interested Persons and Representatives 2. In accordance with S.47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 ( the 2009 Act ) I have determined that the following are interested persons subject to further submissions: The family of the deceased represented by Heather Williams QC instructed by Ms Deighton of Deighton Pierce Glynn Conservative Way Forward (CWF) represented by George Alliott Evidence and Disclosure 3. I have been provided with the following documents which have been disclosed to the currently identified interested persons: - A copy of a suicide note from the deceased to his parents. - The post mortem report. - Undated letter from deceased re: complaint about Mark Clarke (apparently written on 12/8/15) - Letter dated 14 August 2015 from Victoria Blaney to deceased, treating his complaint as a grievance. - from deceased to Victoria Blaney believed to be 14 August 2015 in response to her letter. - in reply from Victoria Blaney to deceased dated 14 August

2 - Letter dated 19 August 2015 from Paul Abbott Chief Executive of CWF to the deceased giving him notice of a proposed redundancy. - Letter dated 25 August 2015 from Paul Abbott to the deceased, the redundancy notification letter. - The deceased s employment contract with CWF dated 29 June A consultancy agreement between the deceased and Conservative Campaign Office dated 2 September Letter dated 21 January 2015 from DPG solicitors acting on behalf of the Deceased s family. - Investigation report BTP undated (author DCI Sam Blackburn). - Copies of some of the deceased s medical and GP records. The Factual Background 4. The facts of this case can be summarised as follows: 5. The deceased DOB 5/11/93 was aged 21 at the time of his death. He was employed by CFW as a Political Editor. He commenced employment on 29 June He was on a salary of 23,000 per annum. He apparently enjoyed his work and was good at his job. 6. The deceased does have a history of attempting to self-harm and he apparently attempted suicide on three previous occasions in his past. These incidents are documented in his medical records. However, these incidents seem to relate to when the deceased came out in relation to his sexuality and the death of a close friend. On the face of it, these incidents of self-harm when the deceased was approximately 18 years of age would appear to have little or no bearing on his death in September The most that could be said is that he was a potentially vulnerable young man who, when under pressure resorted to self-harming. There is no evidence before me that there was any ongoing concern with the deceased or with the issues that were troubling him in the past at the time of his death. The fact that someone has attempted suicide in the past simply increases their risk of suicide. 2

3 7. On 12 August 2015, the deceased made an allegation that he was bullied by Mark Clarke. As I understand it Mr Clarke is not an MP, but he was a former parliamentary candidate who was unsuccessful in his bid to become an MP. He is best described as a Conservative Party Activist. He apparently successfully assisted the Conservative Party with the campaign at the last general election. The detail of the alleged bullying by Mr Clarke towards the deceased is fully set out in the deceased s letter of complaint. I do not repeat the terms of the complaint here. 8. The deceased clearly took the threats and the bullying seriously and immediately made a complaint about Mr Clarke s conduct to a co-worker, Chrissie. She in turn passed the deceased s letter on to HR, who wrote the deceased the letter dated 14 August 2015 saying that they would treat his complaint as a grievance. The deceased by of the same day made it clear that he did not wish to complain about or blame CWF. He stated inter alia: - I am rather unsure by what you mean as a Grievance Meeting. I do not consider the incident on the 12 th August to be the fault of CWF and thus do not want them to receive any blame for something they did not do. I have no problems with the actions of CWF. However, if we talk about it I do think that there may be ways to stop incidents like this happening again. It is my belief that the individual involved may get even more unruly in the future although he is not part of CWF. 9. Ms Blaney by reply on 14 August 2015 wrote inter alia: - we do note your comments that you believe that there may be ways to prevent similar incidents happening in the future and that there are measure (sic) that can be implemented to limit your exposure to this individual and I therefore propose to contact Chrissie on Monday so that we can discuss this and I will revert to you in due course thereafter regarding this. 10. By letter dated 19 August 2015, the deceased was informed that CWF were considering making him redundant. 3

4 11. The letter then goes on to say that there was a diminishing need for the deceased s role and that a redundancy situation had arisen. The letter gave the deceased the opportunity to consult with the organisation in relation to the redundancy situation and he was offered a meeting on 24 August By letter dated 25 August 2015 the redundancy situation was said to be confirmed and the deceased was dismissed, his last day of work being 1 September He was offered an alternative role as a consultant. 13. Meanwhile, the deceased s complaint against Mr Clarke was referred to and being considered and investigated by the Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ). 14. It is said that the deceased did not wish to pursue his complaint but that Lord Feldman who had been appointed to look into the matter insisted that he attend a meeting. That meeting was apparently arranged for 7 September There is a suggestion that the deceased was placed under pressure concerning his complaint and his attendance at the meeting by Mr Clarke. 16. On 15 September 2015, the deceased was found dead on railway tracks with multiple injuries. There is no suggestion on the face of the papers that any third party was involved in the death. 17. A suicide note was subsequently discovered. It is addressed to the deceased s parents. The letter states inter alia: - By the time you read this I will no longer be here I feel I have been a failure These past few weeks have been the worst of my life. I find myself on the work scrapheap. I never did quite enough to make it in journalism. My choice is end it now or wait till the death of my career comes when the money runs out.. 4

5 I have also been involved in a huge political issue. I have been bullied by Mark Clarke and betrayed by Andre Walker I will see you soon though. Fate can t keep us apart forever. So I will see you on the other side. I love you 18. The deceased also wrote a letter to friends in which he wrote: I FAILED YOU. SORRY 19. The deceased wrote a third separate note, addressed to Mr Clarke and Andre Walker (a journalistic friend of the deceased), which reads: I could write a hate message. But actions speak louder than words. I was never one for hate anyway. But I think this should be on your mind. 20. There is a police report from the BTP. Submissions of the Family 21. The family solicitors in their letter dated 21 January 2016 make a number of submissions. These were further supported by submissions made on behalf of the family by Heather Williamson QC at the Pre Inquest Review on 2 nd March That the proposed scope of the inquest is unduly narrow. Further, that it is necessary for the inquest to examine events proximate to Elliott s death and the reasons why he acted as he did on 15 September 2015 in order to: - Determine whether it can be established to the criminal standard of proof that Elliott intended to take his own life; - Ensure that the relevant facts are subject to appropriate scrutiny; - Assuage public anxiety in relation to events that have attracted considerable medial coverage and speculation; and 5

6 - Enable the Senior Coroner to discharge his duty under section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to identify whether the circumstances give rise to a potential risk of other deaths occurring and if so to make appropriate recommendations. 23. The family rely on the following relevant legal principles : - That the coroner must ensure that the relevant facts are fully, fairly and fearlessly investigated and he has a duty to ensure that the facts are exposed to public scrutiny. Sreedharan v HM Coroner for the County of Greater Manchester [2013] EWCA Civ 181, para 18(iii) and ex parte Jamieson. - That an inquest can extend wider than is strictly required for the production of the conclusion at the end of the hearing. - That the inquiry is not restricted to the last link in the chain of causation. Sreedharan (above), R v Inner West London Coroner ex parte Dallaglio [1994] 4 All ER 139. R (Takoushis) v Inner North London Coroner [2006] 1 WLR 461 at para It is for the coroner to decide whether a particular line of inquiry involves a chain of causation which is too remote to form a proper part of the investigation, but this entails the exercise of a judgment, rather than a simple discretion R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner [2011] A AC 1 Sir Anthony Clarke MR at para A function of the inquest is to assuage public anxiety Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London v Channel 4 Television Corp. [2007] EWHC QB 2513 para 7 - That the above principles apply whether article 2 is engaged or not. Reliance in on the minority speeches in R (Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] 2 AC

7 - Moreover there is in practice little difference between a domestic inquest and an Article 2 inquest so far as inquisitorial scope is concerned. Sreedharan. - A short narrative conclusion is permissible and may be appropriate in a non-article 2 case R (Longfield Care Homes) v HM Coroner for Blackburn [2004] EWHC 2467 (Admin) paras That if the proceedings and evidence are narrowly confined, the answer to the how question will not serve the statutory purpose of the prevention or reduction of the risk of future injuries arising in similar circumstances Dallaglio and Takoushis. 24. On the family s behalf the following submissions are then made on the evidence: - BTP report fails to appreciate the cogent evidence linking the loss of employment with the CWF and the bullying from Mark Clarke. - Paul Abbotts redundancy letter undermines the BTP conclusion that indicates that the bullying was a trigger for the dismissal. - The deceased started researching suicide the very evening he was informed of the loss of his employment. - Issue is taken with the description of the incident on the 12 August as minor in nature. - The deceased was devastated by the incident in question and the loss of his employment. - The BTP report barely mentions the meeting in the public house on 2 September 2015 with Mark Clarke and Andre Walker. 7

8 - The BTP report barely mentions the fact that the deceased may have felt he was being cold shouldered by Alexandra Patterson and other previously close associates and this being linked to his decision to withdraw his complaint. - They reject that the deceased sexuality played any direct role in his actions on 15 September The letter goes on to invite me to consider that the circumstances of Elliot s death raise very real concerns in terms of the risks to other young people placed in a similar position. 26. The letter on the family s behalf then outlines the subsequent history in relation to what has happened to Mr Clarke since this incident, namely that he was suspended and then struck off the candidates list and then eventually expelled from the Conservative Party. 27. The extent to which the family wish the inquest to be expanded is not outlined in the letter, but was explained in the skeleton argument from Miss Williams and in her oral submission they suggest that unacceptable bullying was taking place within the Conservative Party and that the Conservative Party appears to have recognised this and launched its own investigation. Moreover the letter states: - An internal inquiry is no substitution for the Coroner s function. All of this reinforces our concern that unless the scope of the inquest is expanded as we have proposed, you will not be able to discharge your role of preventing or reducing the risk in similar occurrences. RULING 28. This is clearly a sad and tragic case. The deceased by all accounts had loving and caring parents and his death must have come as a great shock to them. 29. I have a duty to investigate such sudden and unnatural deaths. I have to comply with my legal duties 8

9 30. It was late in the day, namely in the skeleton argument prepared by Miss Williamson that it was suggested that Article 2 of the ECHR may be engaged. I was referred to paragraph 6-17 of Jervis.. The paragraph I was referred to reads; The reality today, however, is that there are at least three classes of case. There are those (a decreasing proportion) which are clearly Jamieson from the start. There are those (a still small, but nevertheless increasing proportion) which are clearly Middleton from the start. And there are those (a proportion increasingly exponentially) which at the beginning are not clearly either. In the middle category, the current are usually play safe, and cast the net wider rather than narrower. The final by narrow the enquiry later, but at the outset a wider range of matters is considered. Only in the first category can the coroner safely proceed on the basis of the more restricted scope of the pre-human rights act era. In my judgment this inquest falls clearly into the first category. Article 2 of the ECHR is clearly not engaged. At the time of Elliott s death he was not working for a public employer, or state agent. He was working for a private employer, CWF. I note that the Sreedharan case referred to above was, in fact, a case in which Article 2 was engaged. I have a duty to comply with the provisions of the 2009 Act, case law and have regard to any Guidance or Law Sheets issued by the Chief Coroner. This includes in particular Guidance number 17 Conclusions short form and narrative; Law Sheet number 2 Galbriath Plus and Law Sheet number 5 The discretion of the Coroner. I note that this latter document rehearses the proposition that the Coroner has a wide discretion in setting the scope of the investigation. Furthermore that the scope and breadth of the coroner s enquiry is a matter for the..coroner. In the words of Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Jamieson I must set the bounds of the inquiry. In addition as Simon Brown LJ in Dallaglio said.. the [coroner s] inquiry is almost bound to stretch wider than strictly required for the purposes of the verdict [conclusion]. How much wider is pre-eminently a mater for the coroner whose rulings upon the question will only exceptionally be susceptible to judicial review. 9

10 31. There is simply no public law injection by the fact that a political activist for a political party may have been responsible for bullying at the time of the death. Indeed, it should be noted that there is no evidence before me that the employers CWF and Mark Clarke had any connection other than being members of the same political organisation, members of the Conservative Party. 32. It is also submitted on behalf of the family that I should also extend the scope of the inquest because the treatment of Elliott namely the alleged bullying engages article 3 of the ECHR namely the prohibition of torture No one should be subjected to torture or to inhumane or degrading punishment. I was referred to the case of D v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWCA civ 646 to support the submission that serious mistreatment by third parties engages the article 3 investigative obligation. 33. Whilst bullying of any kind is unacceptable I cannot accept that the nature of the bullying alleged to have been carried out against Elliott can be regarded as being in breach of Article 3. If I am wrong with regard to that, however, I do not accept that the case of D is authority for an Article 2 type inquest. It simply requires that allegations against individuals should generally require a proper investigation and criminal process where required. I am satisfied that the investigation carried out by the British Transport Police has discharged that obligation and they have taken the view that no criminal offences have been committed, against Elliott Johnson. 34. Many of the principles outlined in the family s letter of 21 January 2015 and summarised at paragraph 26 above are correct. However, the fact remains that this nevertheless remains a domestic inquest and I still have a wide discretion to set the boundaries of the enquiries. 35. In my judgment the following are potentially relevant issues for exploration. 36. The fact that the deceased lost his job. The redundancy letter is clearly linked to the incident on the 12 August 2015 and in fact states so in terms. 10

11 37. The correspondence between the deceased and his employers is clearly relevant. Mr Paul Abbott will deal with the correspondence in his evidence. 38. The letter of complaint by the deceased in relation to what took place on 12 August 2015 is obviously relevant, since the deceased makes mention of this as being a huge political issue in the letter he left his parents. 39. The last three letters he wrote the day before his death are obviously relevant. 40. Mr Blaney has made mention of the fact that there is an audio recording of a meeting which took place the day before the deceased s death. This is potentially relevant, and I would like to listen to this recording. 41. In my judgment I do not consider at this stage that it is necessary to call either Mr Walker or Mr Clarke. The allegation against them is a blunt one of bullying and betrayal. It is difficult to see that, beyond the assertions made by the Deceased in his letter, what these potential witnesses could add to the inquest, save for to deny any bullying. 42. An investigation into the circumstances of the deceased becoming redundant, the fact that he believed he was being and his subsequent actions that lead to his death would satisfy a Jamieson inquest, in my judgment. 43. It is my view that it would clearly be going beyond the proper scope of this inquest to be calling members of the Conservative Party to inquire into what steps or measures they are taking to investigate the bullying allegations by a party member towards another party member. This is very remote from the death of the deceased and can be tested in this way: the situation would be different if the deceased had been bullied by an MP carrying out his/her functions as an MP, or if there was a position or trust such as parent and child or teacher and child or indeed employer and employee between the deceased and Mr Clarke. But none of these relationships existed and it is not clear the extent to which the family would wish to extend this inquest, particularly bearing in mind that article 2 is not engaged. This was on the face of it a dispute between two individuals who were not connected, apart from the fact that they shared the same 11

12 political affiliation, and the deceased worked for a campaigning section of the Conservative Party. 44. My task is to hear evidence to try and determine who the deceased was, when and where he died and how the deceased came by his death. This is not a case where I am required to investigate how and in what circumstances the deceased came by his death in accordance with S.5(2) of the 2009 Act. Consequently, the inquiry has to concentrate on how the physical cause of death arose and those matters which are causational relevant to the cause of death and not too remote. It is worthy of note that in a case of self harm resulting in death where a Coroner has to consider whether or not the deceased has died from suicide, it is not a requirement to ascertain why somebody wishes to kill themselves but simply whether that was their intention and that they have performed a physical act which has had that result. Not uncommonly an inquest will hear evidence about why a person may wish to kill themselves as part of the background evidence. 45. The issue of the scope of a coroner s inquiry was most recently considered in the case of R ( Speck) v HM Coroner for the District of York [2016] EWHC 6 ( Admin). That, of course, was an Article 2 case. Indeed in R (Wiggins ) v HM Assistant Coroner for Northampton[2015] EWHC 2841 ( Admin) this affirmed that even in an Article 2 case the Coroner was only obliged to investigate issues which are, or at least appear arguable to be, central to the cause of death. I note in particular that Holroyde J. at paragraph 47 in Speck helpfully summarised the position: Drawing these strands together, my conclusions were as follows. First, that the duty of the coroner was limited to a duty to investigate those matters which caused, or at least arguably appeared to him to have caused or contributed to, the death. Secondly, that the claimant was unable to show even an arguable case that any body was at the material time under a duty, statutory or otherwise, to establish a HBPoS at a time and in a location, such that Miss Speck could have been taken to such a facility in June Thirdly, that the claimant was therefore unable to show even an arguable case that miss spec s death was caused or contributed to by a breach of such a duty. Fourthly, that the coroner was therefore correct to decline to investigate issues as to the 12

13 non-availability of a HBPoS; to have done so would have been to investigate matters which fell outside his statutory duty under section 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act Lastly, that even if I had been persuaded that it was within the coroner s discretion to investigate such matters, I would have found there was no basis on which it could be said that his decision not to do so was a perverse or otherwise unlawful exercise of that discretion. 46. In my judgment and, in the exercise of my discretion, the scope of the inquest I have decided is appropriate in this case and meets the requirement for a full, fair and fearless inquiry. It is apparent that the background circumstances have attracted a good deal of media coverage. It is suggested that the function of an inquest is to assuage public anxiety but that does not mean and has never been taken to mean that each and every issue has to be investigated. There is also a clear distinction between public anxiety and public interest. 47. The inquest is limited to answering the question as to how the deceased came by his death, will look at the circumstances of his employment and consider in detail the content of the notes left by the deceased to determine whether the correct conclusion should be that he died as a result of suicide. 48. I emphasise again that an inquest is not a trial. The purpose is not to determine whether the allegations of bullying set out in the letters left by Mr. Johnson were true and I will not allow the inquest to be used as a tool for putting anyone on trial. The purpose of an inquest is not to identify individual fault on the part of those involved. In deed it is expressly not concerned with apportioning blame or determining questions of fault. 49. Finally I should perhaps clarify my position as to my powers under S.7 of the 2009 Act mentioned in the submissions on behalf of the family. The Coroner actually has no power to make recommendations but has to consider whether the criteria under Paragraph 7 to Schedule 5 of the 2009 Act are established in order to make a prevention of future deaths report in accordance with Regulation 28 of the Coroners Investigations Regulations 2013 ( the Regulations ) and having regard to Guidance Number 5 as amended. The coroner s ability at the end of an inquest to report matters 13

14 to some person to take action to prevent future deaths has been described as ancillary to the inquest procedure and should not by itself enlarge the scope of the investigation. 50. I will at all times keep an open mind throughout the conduct of the inquest should any further information become available to me. Tom Osborne HM Senior Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton 4 March