Rizvi v HM Assistant Coroner for South London: Judicial review refused in Article 2 inquest challenge

The High Court has refused permission for judicial review in a challenge to a coroner's decision not to leave Article 2 ECHR issues to a jury, finding both that the application was out of time and that the grounds advanced were not arguable.

Sabina Rizvi was fatally shot in March 2003 as she drove away from Bexleyheath Police Station with her boyfriend, Mark Williams, who survived with serious injuries. Paul Asbury was subsequently convicted of murder and attempted murder, though those who carried out the attack have never been identified.

An inquest was opened but adjourned pending criminal proceedings. Following the family's efforts, it resumed in 2024 as an Article 2 inquest before HHJ Angela Rafferty KC and a jury. The central question was whether police officers Roberto Florio and Thomas Horner knew or ought to have known that Asbury posed a real and immediate threat to Rizvi's life, and whether they failed to take reasonable preventative measures.

The coroner's ruling

After hearing evidence and submissions, the coroner applied the Galbraith test and concluded there was sufficient evidence that a real and immediate risk existed, but insufficient evidence that police officers were or should have been aware of it. Consequently, she ruled there was no basis to leave questions of police acts or omissions to the jury. The jury returned a short-form verdict of unlawful killing.

The judicial review challenge

Rizvi's mother sought judicial review, arguing the coroner erred by determining matters according to whether Article 2 had been breached rather than whether such a breach was arguable, and by conflating the question of Article 2 breach with causation.

Mr Justice Foxton first addressed the application for an extension of time. The three-month time limit expired on 24 June 2024, but the application was not properly filed until 24 September 2024. Whilst acknowledging the devastating impact of the loss on Mrs Rizvi and the difficulties she faced as a litigant in person, the court identified several periods of unreasonable delay. The family's experienced legal team at the inquest had advised there was no arguable claim, and the prospects of success were described as "extremely challenging".

Significantly, the court noted that extending time would prolong legal uncertainty over events dating back to 2003, following an extensive inquest with full representation. Taking all factors into account, including the importance of the issues but the poor prospects of success, the extension was refused.

Analysis of the grounds

On the merits, the court found Ground 1—that the coroner applied the wrong test—was misconceived. All parties at the inquest, including the family's counsel, had framed their submissions around the factual predicates of Article 2 liability. The coroner properly applied the Galbraith test to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to leave those factual issues to the jury. The characterisation of the "real and immediate" threshold as "very high" was supported by extensive authority and in any event did not affect the outcome.

Ground 2—regarding causation—also failed. The coroner had addressed all alleged police acts or omissions advanced at the inquest and found none met the Galbraith threshold. Having made those findings, she was entitled to conclude no causation issues arose for the jury. The family's own counsel had recognised at the inquest that if Article 2 was not engaged on the evidence, there would be no causative matters to leave.

The application was refused on both time and merits grounds.