Do all work-related deaths have an inquest and if so are they infront of a jury?

Reportable Deaths
Section 8(3) of the Coroner's Act states that there should be a jury inquest where:

"the death was caused by an accident, poisoning or disease notice of which is required to be given under any Act to a Government department, to any inspector, or other officer of a government department or to an inspector appointed under section 19 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974"

In relation to these deaths, not only will there be an inquest into the death but the inquest must take place with a jury.

Reportable deaths includes those reportable to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or Local Authority under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrence Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

A death is reportable under RIDDOR if:

"any person [who] dies as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work" (reg 3)

The person who dies can be a worker or member of the public. There are certain exceptions to this rule involving certain work-related road traffic deaths and deaths in hospitals. However, a rule of thumb is that if the HSE or the Local Authority are already investigating the death, then it was reportable.

If the death was at sea, it may be reportable under the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1999. Again, a rule of thumb is that if the Marine and Coastguard Agency or the Maritime Accident and Investigation Branch are conducting an investigation it is reportable

Non-Reportable deaths
Section 8 of the Coroners Act states that there will be an inquest into any death when the coroner has "reasonable cause to suspect" that the deceased

Most work-related deaths - if not reportable - will be considered either violent or unnatural. In the case of R on the application of Touche v Inner London Coroner [2001] 3 WLR 148 it was held that even if a death will be unnatural even if the death was from natural causes but this had occurred due to blameworthy human failure. The court said:

“What is it about unnatural death that calls for an inquest? Is there not a powerful case of saying that an inquest should be held whenever a wholly unexpected death, albeit from natural causes, results from some culpable human failure? (or more strictly whether the coroner has reasonable grounds to suspect that such is the case) Such deaths prompt understandable public concern and surely no small part of the coroner’s function is to carry out an appropriate investigation to allay such concern.”

However, deaths that are considered "violent or unnatural" but are not reportable will not have an inquest in front of a jury. It will take place with the coroner sitting alone. The exception to this if the coroner considers that the death occurred:

" in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public." (section 8(3))

If the coroner is of this view, not only will there be an inquest, but the inquest must take place infront of a jury.

In what kinds of deaths would this rule apply?

Case law indicates that the coroner has to decide whether the circumstances that provides the context to the death were "isolated " – in which no jury needs to be called - or indicates the existence of a "systemic problem" (where a jury should be called).

In the case of R v Hammersmith Coroner ex. p.. Peach ([1980] 2 WLR 497), Lord Bridge stated that:

“… the paragraph applies to circumstances of such a kind that their continuance or recurrence may reasonably and ought properly to be avoided by taking of appropriate steps which it is in the power of some responsible body to take.”

He gave an example of a death which indicated "systemic" problems - a death of a hospital patient due to a wrong prescription. In such a case, he said, the system for the control, issue and handling of dangerous drugs would amount to circumstances that justified calling a jury. The relevant‘section of the public whose health or safety was in issue was future patients of the hospital. Thus the existence of a potential systemic defect that provides the context in which a death took place and is amenable to future prevention and/or control would justify the summoning of a jury. Lord Bridge stated:

In the case of a death of a volunteer soldier who died during a training session, the court held that this was “plainly a case which in the coroner’s judgment did not appear to be a case of systemic default, in other words a case in which the system was so much at fault that if nothing was done, there would be other deaths.” (R v Attorney General ex p Ferrante, [1995] COD 18)

A coroner is entitled to conclude at the outset that the death resulted from circumstances that amounted to an isolated incident as opposed to a comprehensive systemic malfunction .