INQUEST INJUSTICE

When a former Archbishop of Canterbury’s grandson, Simon Day, died recently of a heroin overdose after coming out of rehab, a coroner recorded a verdict of death by misadventure. In such cases most do.

Yet when Matthew Jakeman died in similar circumstances several years earlier, the verdict at his inquest was “death due to dependency on drugs.”

That decision has caused Matthew’s mum Lesley Jakeman unnecessary anguish because she doesn’t feel it was a just one based on all the facts. Here she explains why:

“ I feel an injustice is done to the memory of the deceased person and to the family if the full facts are not allowed to be aired in a public process, which is then publicised in the media for all to read or hear.

Bereaved relatives enter the coroner’s court emotionally vulnerable, trusting in the legal system to provide the right outcome -  a verdict which fits based on ALL the evidence, and an opportunity to speak  and give evidence about their loved one.

 My son’s inquest verdict “death due to dependency on drugs” was recorded without the coroner knowing Matthew had been off drugs for eight months immediately prior to his death after rehabilitation because I was not allowed the opportunity to speak at the hearing.

Had I been, I’d have made that clear along with the fact that Matthew had been with me earlier on the tragic Friday evening he died  – and was absolutely fine.

I’d have classed this information as relevant to the outcome. So too did a solicitor and barrister who felt I had a very good case to take to the High Court to have the verdict changed when I pursued the matter separately.

After already spending thousands of pounds on legal advice, I couldn’t take  that financial risk; nor should I have had to.  One night of lapsing after drinking alcohol with a drug user cost Matthew his life, but does not say “dependency on drugs”. It says, “death by misadventure”. The word “dependency” suggests unable to live without drugs; Matthew lived successfully without drugs for over eight months.

Therefore Matthew’s inquest verdict remains. Personally, I shall always feel it is a great injustice to his memory. 

Looking at the bigger picture, I am concerned about the apparent lack of standard procedures and verdicts in coroners’ inquests.

Were there standard requirements for all coroners and coroners’ officers to follow in inquests, then instances of some coroners conducting inquests to suit their own purpose would not occur.  And the bereaved would not have something else to grieve over.