{"id":1798,"date":"2018-05-01T19:00:55","date_gmt":"2018-05-01T18:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/religion-law-and-the-constitution\/?p=1798"},"modified":"2025-11-26T11:28:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T11:28:12","slug":"coroners-setting-priorities-religion-is-relevant-but-so-are-other-needs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/religion-law-and-the-constitution\/2018\/05\/01\/coroners-setting-priorities-religion-is-relevant-but-so-are-other-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"Coroners setting priorities: Religion IS relevant, but so are other needs"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ _builder_version=”3.17.6″ menu_id=”8″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” background_layout=”dark” module_class=”main-navigation” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”off” specialty=”on” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_column type=”2_3″ specialty_columns=”2″][et_pb_row_inner locked=”off”][et_pb_column_inner type=”4_4″ saved_specialty_column_type=”2_3″][et_pb_post_title _builder_version=”3.17.6″ featured_placement=”above” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” date_format=”j M Y” \/][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”light” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The High Court has now reached its decision in a challenge to a policy imposed by the coroner for Inner North London which stated as follows: \u201cNo death will be prioritised in any way over any other because of the religion of the deceased or family\u201d.<\/p>\n

This taxi-rank rule had been set out in response to tensions between the coroner and a Jewish burial charity, the detail of which we discussed in an earlier blog.\u00a0 The dispute was one which aroused strong feelings on all sides, and amongst observers.\u00a0 Both Judaism and Islam require a deceased person to be buried as soon as possible after death, and any delay in funeral arrangements will cause acute distress within these communities. However, it is also unquestionable that all <\/em>bereaved families are likely to find it painful if faced with an increased wait to say their final goodbyes, and many people struggle with the thought of their loved one being kept and examined by strangers.\u00a0 All things considered, coroners have to be mindful of the situation of all of the families with whom they are dealing, and against a backdrop of limited public resources, managing competing needs is undoubtedly very challenging.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it is not surprising that a blanket ban on considering religious factors in prioritising the coroner\u2019s work was found to be unlawful.\u00a0 In reaching this conclusion, the High Court was careful to stress a number of factors.\u00a0 In pragmatic terms, coroners have to make decisions prioritising their caseload, and there are multiple reasons why an investigation into a particular death should be concluded as rapidly as possible.\u00a0 These might be practically based, e.g. if organ donation is a possibility or there is an ongoing homicide investigation, but they could also rooted in emotional factors, and what the court described as \u2018ordinary humanity\u2019<\/em>.\u00a0 For instance, where a child has died in hospital, the parents may wish to have his or her body moved from a hospital mortuary to a suite at a hospice, where they can be laid out peacefully in a more gentle environment. Clearly, decisions about which deaths to prioritise are difficult and sensitive matters, and a completely inflexible policy offends common sense as well as legal principles.<\/p>\n

The court had no difficulty in finding that refusing to consider religious needs was unlawful. As a general principle, those exercising statutory (and possibly some forms of Common Law) decision-making discretion may not \u2018fetter\u2019 in.\u00a0 In other words, if a person is tasked with using their discretion, they are failing to do this if they robotically apply fixed criteria.\u00a0 Furthermore, public decision-makers must make rational choices, and however you sliced it, a policy which took no heed of religious concerns was unreasonable.\u00a0 On the one hand, if the policy was supposed to take into account individual circumstances in general terms, yet was to specifically ignore factors relating to faith, then this arbitrary exclusion would undoubtedly be irrational.\u00a0 But, conversely, if the policy purported to forbid taking any <\/em>of the individual circumstances of the case into consideration, it would manifestly fail whatever test of rationality was to be applied, as well as being untenable in a practical sense.\u00a0 In addition, Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees a right for people to not only hold, but also express their religious beliefs. The right to manifest religious beliefs can be limited by the State, but only<\/em> if there is a good reason and only<\/em> in so far as it is necessary.\u00a0 In refusing to even think<\/em> about a family\u2019s needs, the coroner would inevitably fail to show that she had acted for a sound and objectively important reason, and avoiding going further than was required in limiting religious freedom.<\/p>\n

In light of all of this, the court was bound to find against the blanket ban on factoring religious needs into decision-making.\u00a0 At the same time, the court was nevertheless very keen to stress its second overarching point.\u00a0 The coroner had a duty to strike a \u2018fair-balance\u2019 between religious needs and other needs (and obviously, totally disregarding the former was no way to do this), but this should not <\/em>be interpreted to mean that faith-based demands should take priority.\u00a0 A policy which automatically placed religious families ahead of non-religious families in the queue would be every bit as unlawful and inappropriate as the blanket ban which had been imposed.\u00a0 Furthermore, the court made a useful analogy between the task before the coroner and that of a hospital\u2019s Accident and Emergency department.\u00a0 It would be disastrous if patients arriving at casualty were treated on a first come first served basis, and a middle aged man suffering a heart-attack had to queue behind a toddler with a dried-pea jammed up his nose.\u00a0 In both contexts, each situation needs to be appropriately assessed, and although guidelines in making such judgements are necessary, they must be based on reasonable parameters and flexible enough to allow discretion.<\/p>\n

In other words, regardless of their religion or lack of it, the position is the same.\u00a0 Every family can expect that its particular circumstances will be taken into account, and weighed up in light of the workload, resources and the competing needs of others.\u00a0 Coming from a particular religious or cultural background certainly does not give anyone a \u2018right\u2019 to jump the queue, but if that religious or cultural context heightens the distress caused by delay or invasive procedures, then this should be taken into account when priority decisions are being made.<\/p>\n

Often human rights, and religious rights in particular, are criticised for giving some groups in society access to special treatment.\u00a0 This is inaccurate: the whole point about universal human rights is to recognise that everyone <\/em>has exactly the same rights by virtue of their human status.\u00a0 When there is a clash between competing rights, it is the job of the State, and where there is dispute of the State\u2019s courts, to ensure that a \u2018fair-balance\u2019 is arrived at.\u00a0 It would be impossible to find a fair-balance by ignoring religious beliefs, on the one hand, or treating them as a priority boarding card to faster service on the other.\u00a0 This decision affirms that religious needs are important, but so are other needs as well.<\/p>\n

Related Articles<\/strong><\/p>\n

Coroners Inquests and Religious Requirements: Where Angels Fear to Tread<\/a> (Balancing Beliefs 26\/1\/18)<\/p>\n

Adath Yisroel Burial Society\u00a0 v HM Senior Coroner For Inner North London<\/a> [2018] EWHC 969 (Admin)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_post_nav _builder_version=”3.0.106″ in_same_term=”off” show_prev=”on” show_next=”on” prev_text=”Previous” next_text=”Next” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” \/][et_pb_comments _builder_version=”3.0.106″ show_avatar=”on” show_reply=”on” show_count=”on” background_layout=”light” header_font_size_tablet=”51″ header_line_height_tablet=”2″ custom_button=”on” button_icon_placement=”right” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_use_icon=”off” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off” button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null” \/][et_pb_text admin_label=”Related posts” _builder_version=”3.0.106″ background_layout=”light” locked=”on” parent_locked=”off”]<\/p>\n

Related<\/h1>\n

Related posts:<\/h3>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>

A rise in religious hate crime: what the law means for all of us.<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a>
<\/div>

Freedom of Expression, Ideas and Universities.<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a>
<\/div>

Flameless Book-Burning-Arkansas Act 372 and Children\u2019s Access to Information<\/h2><\/div><\/div><\/a><\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column_inner][\/et_pb_row_inner][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_sidebar _builder_version=”3.0.106″ area=”sidebar-1″ orientation=”left” show_border=”off” background_layout=”light” locked=”on” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”Connect Title” custom_padding=”0px||0px|” _builder_version=”3.0.90″ background_color=”#1d1d1d” module_class=”footer-section” prev_background_color=”#ffffff” global_module=”380″][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” global_parent=”380″ locked=”off” allow_player_pause=”off” parallax=”off” parallax_method=”on” parallax_1=”off” parallax_method_1=”off” parallax_2=”off” parallax_method_2=”off” parallax_3=”off” parallax_method_3=”off” make_fullwidth=”off” use_custom_width=”off” width_unit=”on” use_custom_gutter=”off” make_equal=”off” module_id=”footer-row” _builder_version=”3.0.89″][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Contact Us Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Contact Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Contact Us” global_parent=”380″ text_text_color=”#aaaaaa” parent_locked=”off” background_layout=”light” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_class=”contact-us” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

+44 (0) 161 306 6000<\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Find Us Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Find Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”Address” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_orientation=”left” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid” module_id=”address” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

The University of Manchester
Oxford Rd
Manchester
M13 9PL
UK<\/a><\/p>\n

[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_3″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Connect Title” global_parent=”380″ background_layout=”dark” text_text_color=”#ffffff” parent_locked=”off” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” background_size=”initial”]<\/p>\n

Connect With Us<\/h4>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_code admin_label=”Social Media” global_parent=”380″ parent_locked=”off” _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n