Speed Brief: Drawing the Line: When do Investigations fulfil the State’s Article 2 obligation?

The judgment of 30 June 2025 in the case of R (Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin) considered the circumstances surrounding the State’s obligation to discharge its Article 2 procedural duty following a death involving State agencies, and whether this must be done via an Article 2 inquest or can be achieved by other investigative means.

In this case, the family of Jaden Bailey challenged the Senior Coroner’s decision not to resume the Inquest into his death on 8 January 2019. Jaden had been riding a moped and was hit by a car. Those inside the car proceeded to get out of the car and stab Jaden, who died at the scene. A man was convicted of Jaden’s murder on 11 December 2019.

Whilst an inquest was initially opened on 18 January 2019 following Jaden’s death, this was adjourned pending the criminal trial. Further to the conviction of the perpetrator in December 2019, the Coroner issued a certificate that the Inquest would not be resumed. Separate investigations took place thereafter, including a Serious Case Review (“SCR”) in 2020, and an independent investigation by the IOPC, in relation to the actions of the Metropolitan Police, given its previous knowledge of and involvement with Jaden. 

Challenging the Coroner’s decision

In June 2023, Jaden’s family applied to the Coroner to resume the Inquest, arguing that “the State's investigative obligation under Article 2 ECHR was engaged on the basis of potential breach by the police of their operational duty to safeguard Jaden's life”, but that the State had not discharged its procedural duty to investigate the death, as no Article 2 compliant inquest had been held.

On 18 March 2024, and following written submissions, the Coroner set out the full rationale for not resuming the Inquest, which included a reminder that the Coroner is required to consider “whether all other investigative procedures of the State have collectively satisfied the requirements of the procedural obligation”.

The written ruling also included a summary of the relevant case law considered, and reiterated that “the decision of a Coroner on whether or not to resume an Inquest has been described as one "of a highly discretionary character” (Para 3). The Coroner also set out that disclosure had been sought, prior to the decision, to assess the nature and scope of the investigations already undertaken (namely the SCR and the IOPC investigation) and whether the State had fulfilled its obligations under Article 2.

The Coroner had also considered whether the conclusions of the Inquest could also provide valuable conclusions (primary and Regulation 28 report) which would go beyond the conclusions reached in the criminal investigation. The Coroner concluded that the Article 2 procedural obligation had been discharged based on the investigations undertaken and that there was no sufficient reason to resume the Inquest.

Judicial Review

An Article 2 investigation, per the Middleton case must be “an effective public investigation by an independent official body”. The Coroner’s submission was that sufficient steps had been taken to discharge the Article 2 procedural obligation, and therefore there was no requirement to resume the Inquest. The Claimant argued the Article 2 procedural obligation had not been discharged.

Swift J agreed with the Coroner’s assessment and set out his own rationale in detail, including summarising the relevant case law on Article 2 investigations, and considering the detail of the SCR conducted following the incident. The SCR report set out a detailed summary of the factual position, including interaction with various public authorities and it identified conclusions in relation to the failings of those authorities, including the Metropolitan Police. Swift J concluded that the SCR report was an effective Article 2 investigation which established the facts, stating: “the SCR report, as written, evidences an effective investigation of the actions and omissions of those public authorities” (Para 21). He acknowledged it will always be possible to point to further questions following such a review, but that is not the test of whether the investigation meets the requirements of Article 2. Swift J also concluded that the SCR report was sufficiently independent, it having been conducted by an experienced and independent investigator, and the form of the investigation was sufficient to discharge the Article 2 investigation, including the decision not to hold public hearings. In his view, sufficient public scrutiny was achieved by publishing the SCR. Swift J also considered the Claimant’s argument that she was not involved in the SCR investigation, and recited details from emails and letters inviting the Claimant to be involved, noting that she had declined to do so.

The family also argued in its application that there was further utility in holding an inquest, because the inquest might provide further conclusions that would go beyond those already reached in the other investigations, if the Coroner (or jury) were to find a narrative conclusion under Note (ii) of Form 2 in the Record of Inquest.

Swift J dismissed this argument, confirming that there is “no material difference between a conclusion expressed using any of the terms listed in Note (i) and one that is in the “brief narrative” form anticipated by Note (ii). Each is intended to be descriptive: to describe the outcome of the Inquest. For example, a conclusion of “unlawful killing” could be given either by simply using those words or through a narrative to the same effect” (para 45). He agreed with the Coroner that it was unlikely that the Inquest would go further than the SCR report.

Learnings from this case

This case shows the application of the settled law on Article 2 investigations to a case where a Coroner has chosen not to resume an inquest following a criminal conviction for the death. It confirms that Article 2 does not prescribe the form of the investigation needed in order for the State to discharge its enhanced procedural investigation, and that this can be achieved by means other than an inquest. However, it underscores the key requirement (as set out in the case of Grice) that for an investigation to be Article 2 compliant, it needs to establish the facts of what happened, must be independent, and must invite the families to be involved, and must be open to public scrutiny.

Should you wish to discuss these insights in more detail, or how we can help with inquest management, please do contact us.