Coroner formally warned over expletive reaction

Shropshire Shirehall building which features a large, dark-grey, rounded section, behind which is a six-storey office block. There are trees in the foreground and a large paved area.
Image caption,

The Shropshire coroner’s office is based at Shirehall in Shrewsbury

  • Published

A coroner has been given a formal warning for misconduct after being overheard using an expletive to describe a lawyer’s inquest arguments.

Shropshire assistant coroner Heath Westerman's comments after a hearing were inappropriate and prejudicial, an investigation found.

In a statement, the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) said it had received a complaint on behalf of a mother attending an inquest following the death of her son.

Mr Westerman apologised to the woman straight away, reported himself to the senior coroner and recused himself from the case, the JCIO added.

The statement said the complainant alleged he had gone on to describe the duration of the inquest listing as "ridiculous" and he was also alleged to have said: "Who do these people think they are?"

The coroner denied making these two comments and added he had been "under considerable pressure of work at the time".

Mr Westerman accepted he had used the expletive because of frustration caused by a poor submission by the complainant's lawyer, the JCIO said.

He said the discussion with two members of staff took place in a private area at a time when he believed the complainant had left the building.

"He nevertheless accepted that his language was inappropriate and intemperate, for which he was very sorry," the JCIO said in its statement.

A judge who investigated the case subsequently found that in addition to using the expletive in relation to the barrister's submission, the coroner said something implying that the duration of the listing was ridiculous.

According to the JCIO, the judge found he had not said: "Who do they think they are?"

“The Lord Chancellor and the lady chief justice agreed with the nominated judge that a formal warning was a reasonable and proportionate sanction in this case,” they added.

“In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that the coroner had a previously unblemished conduct record.”