The well-publicised findings and conclusion of the coroner at the close of the inquest into the death of Steve Dymond, who took his own life seven days after appearing on the Jeremy Kyle Show in May 2019, have raised questions about what evidence is required to satisfy a coroner of a causative link between an event and subsequent death.
The case law on causation in the coroners’ court is well-traversed.
In R (Tainton) v HM Coroner for Preston and West Lancashire [2016] EWHC 1396(Admin) it was said that for causation of death to be established, the threshold is “whether on the balance of probabilities, the event or conduct more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to the death”[para.41]. The relevant event “must make an actual and material contribution to the death of the deceased” [para.62]. The crucial point being that it must be proven that the relevant event itself was causatively linked to the death.
In R (Wandsworth) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner West London [2021] EWHC 801 (Admin) the deceased had lived in a property where asbestos was present. However, this was not sufficient to establish that the fatal mesothelioma they went on to develop was caused by the fibres from that asbestos. The fact that a person was possibly exposed to asbestos at an address, combined with asbestos often being the cause of mesothelioma, was not sufficient for a finding that the asbestos from the property caused the death.
The recent Court of Appeal case of Dove v Assistant Coroner for Teesside [2023] EWCA Civ 289 further confirmed the above approach and made it clear that any consideration of the causation on a “but-for” basis would be wrong.
In Mr Dymond’s case, His Majesty’s Area Coroner Jason Pegg, in what was a Jamieson (non-Article 2 inquest), found that there was “insufficient evidence” to find that his appearance on the Jeremy Kyle Show was either contributory or the direct cause of Mr Dymond’s death, adding that there was “no causal link” between the two. Mr Dymond had failed a lie detector test which had been used to determine whether he had been unfaithful to his partner. Mr Pegg said “The deceased’s decision to take his own life was made in the context of his mental distress that was probably exacerbated by his belief that a significant relationship had now irretrievably broken down following his participation on a television programme where it had been suggested that the deceased had lied to his partner”. There had been no mention of his treatment on the show in any of the notes Mr Dymond had left for his family. Mr Pegg said, that “whilst possible” that his appearance on the show added to his distress, “it is not probable”.
The case of Mr Dymond serves as a reminder about the causation test in coronial proceedings and how coroners apply the evidence in the context of that test in making their findings. As with all inquests, and indeed any proceedings, the findings will turn on the evidence heard and the facts of the case. Whilst it may appear surprising to those who watched the events(literally) play out on television, and read the subsequent tabloid headlines, the coroner would have carefully considered whether the evidence before him met the tests set out above.
It is worth noting that in an Article 2 (Middleton)inquest (held where there is the potential that the state (or ‘its agents’) has failed in its negative obligation to refrain from taking life, or in its positive obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard life), the coroner has a power to record (or leave to the jury) - for the purpose of a narrative conclusion - circumstances that are possible but not probable causes of death.
Charlotte has appeared innumerous multi-day inquests representing all types of interested parties, including Article 2 and jury inquests. She has appeared in a number of inquests reported in the national press, including those involving Leading Counsel. She has particular experience at inquests involving young people taking their own lives.
Charlotte’s series of article on inquests is available on our website and on LinkedIn.
