Cargando…

Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?

This article examines the standard of proof for unlawful killing in coronial proceedings. Historically, the criminal standard of proof governed inquest findings of unlawful killing. In R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire, the Supreme Court resolved the important question of wh...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Kelly, Gerard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9716378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35694742
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00258172221099080
_version_ 1784842676375388160
author Kelly, Gerard
author_facet Kelly, Gerard
author_sort Kelly, Gerard
collection PubMed
description This article examines the standard of proof for unlawful killing in coronial proceedings. Historically, the criminal standard of proof governed inquest findings of unlawful killing. In R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire, the Supreme Court resolved the important question of whether the criminal or civil standard governed inquest conclusions of unlawful killing. The court concluded that the correct standard of proof for all conclusions in coronial proceedings is the balance of probabilities. This article argues that whilst preserving differing standards of proof in coronial proceedings was no longer defensible and Maughan has provided welcome clarity, unanswered questions remain concerning the implementation of this fundamental change.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9716378
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97163782022-12-03 Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion? Kelly, Gerard Med Leg J Commentaries This article examines the standard of proof for unlawful killing in coronial proceedings. Historically, the criminal standard of proof governed inquest findings of unlawful killing. In R (Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire, the Supreme Court resolved the important question of whether the criminal or civil standard governed inquest conclusions of unlawful killing. The court concluded that the correct standard of proof for all conclusions in coronial proceedings is the balance of probabilities. This article argues that whilst preserving differing standards of proof in coronial proceedings was no longer defensible and Maughan has provided welcome clarity, unanswered questions remain concerning the implementation of this fundamental change. SAGE Publications 2022-06-13 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9716378/ /pubmed/35694742 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00258172221099080 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Commentaries
Kelly, Gerard
Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title_full Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title_fullStr Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title_full_unstemmed Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title_short Unlawful killing at inquests: Clarity or confusion?
title_sort unlawful killing at inquests: clarity or confusion?
topic Commentaries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9716378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35694742
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00258172221099080
work_keys_str_mv AT kellygerard unlawfulkillingatinquestsclarityorconfusion