A senior coroner has defended his decision not to allow a local journalist remote access to an inquest after receiving the request 45 minutes before the hearing was due to start.

MyLondon reporter Rafi Mauro-Benady was seeking online access to an inquest into the death of Pakistani student Shoaib Raza who died in a road accident in London.

After his request to join Friday’s hearing via video link was turned down, Rafi took to X to hit out at what he called the “very poor” decision.

But senior coroner for East London Graeme Irvine has defended the move, saying the short notice would have placed an “unreasonable burden” on court staff.

Posting on X, Rafi said: “Very poor that I wasn’t let in to East London Corner court earlier today. I asked 45 mins before the hearing for the link, only to be told it should’ve been 24hrs

“A journalist should never be denied access to a court & this was not in the best interests of justice.”

But in a letter to Rafi, which Mr Irvine’s office has also shared with HoldtheFrontPage, Mr Irvine denied there was a blanket rule about the court needing 24 hours notice.

He said decisions were made based on whether it was in the interests in justice to allow access, and that Rafi had not attempted to demonstrate this.

Mr Irvine wrote: “This court prides itself on maintaining public justice. Hearings are publicly announced well in advance of the hearing.

“The doors of the court are open to the public during sitting hours and the local authority has provided resources to facilitate journalists doing their job. I recognise that a functioning press is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

“You made a request to join the opening of an inquest scheduled for hearing at 09.00 at 08.15 this morning.

“Firstly, the application was deficient set against the generality of properly made press requests as it did not even attempt to demonstrate why it was in the interests of justice to allow you to join by video-link. Secondly, it was a last minute application.

“To be clear, I must depart from the advice that you have been given by email this morning, there is no hard and fast rule at this court to demand 24 hours notice of a request to attend remotely, but I must have a reasonable amount of time to consider the relevant issues and set up a video-link.

“Rule 11 of the Coroners Inquest Rules is very clear, coroners must facilitate appropriate public access to all hearings, including those that are conducted using remote means.

“Journalists have the option of either observing hearings in person or applying for permission to observe hearings remotely.

“However, there is no automatic right to observe a hearing remotely. Individuals are entitled to apply to join the proceedings remotely, but each application is considered on a case-by-case basis and may be refused.

“Taking all of the relevant factors into account I did not find it to be in the interests of justice to allow a remote link,

“You did not even attempt to argue your case as to why it was in the interests of justice to allow you to join remotely, 45 minutes notice did not allow me adequate time to field the views of interested persons on whether remote access should be permitted, and such short notice placed an unreasonable burden on court staff.

“To conclude, a refusal to make a direction for remote attendance is not the same as denying public access to the proceedings.

“Individuals seeking remote attendance will need to explain why it is in the interests of justice to allow them to observe a hearing remotely when there is the option to attend in person, please do so in future and give us reasonable notice.”