A journalist and media law expert is stepping up his fight to have the outcome of a ‘secret’ inquest made public.

As previously reported on HTFP, Charlie Moloney sought to cover the outcome of an “inquest in writing” held at Beaconsfield Coroner’s Court last year.

However when contacted the court to request the coroner’s findings, the request was refused, prompting fears of the “end of open justice.”

Charlie, pictured, said at the time that the case appeared to set a precedent that inquests can now be concluded in private, with an order for “perpetual silence as to what occurred.”

Now Charlie has submitted an application to the senior coroner for Buckinghamshire arguing that the decision to withold the outcome of the inquest was not lawful.

In his application, Charlie, who writes for newspapers as well as teaching law at News Associates, discloses that the name of the deceased man was Graham Robert Whelan, 38, of Wendover, Bucks.

He writes: “There are some pieces of information and/or documents which a coroner’s court may possess which  should be provided to journalists as a matter of course.

“This is because the information and/or documents are essentially public documents and therefore there is no basis to refuse a member of the public (including journalists) from inspecting a copy of them. The record of inquest is one such document.”

In the application, Charlie cites Coroner’s Guidance published in 2016 stating that the completed Record of Inquest should be treated by coroners as a public document.

It states: “The press should be allowed to inspect the Record of Inquest or copy it or have a copy provided. A charge may be made for copying. In practice, journalists will usually photograph the document on their phone.”

Writes Charlie: “If the outcome of the case itself – which the record of inquest essentially represents – cannot be known, then that is a worrying move towards what could colloquially be described as secret justice.

“This decision represents, in effect, an inquest being held in private. The outcome not being disclosed to the media means it will never be known to the public. That is – I would submit – an unprecedented decision.

“Given the magnitude of that change, which would strike at the very heart of the principle of open justice, I would submit that unless there is some clear, unambiguous source of this power to hold a private inquest which the Coroner can point to which makes this decision lawful, then I would submit it is not lawful.

“I would therefore ask for the record of inquest to be disclosed to me via email. If the Coroner declines to provide the record of inquest, I respectfully request reasons to be provided in writing which address the points raised in this application.”

The court had responded to Charlie’s original request saying: “The Senior Coroner has considered the request and we have liaised with the family to weigh up the interests of the family against any public interest in the circumstances of the death of Mr Whelan.

“The Senior Coroner maintains the view that it was appropriate to conclude the Inquest in writing on this basis and that there was and remains no public interest in the circumstances. The family concur.

“On this basis the interests of the family are favoured over any change in the view as regards public interest in reporting the circumstances.

“There is no broader learning or public health benefit that would merit publicity in this case. There will be no post-inquest disclosure in response to this request.”