Members of Civitas have acted for two Senior Coroners in a novel case where they sought to challenge the decision of the Registrar General for England and Wales not to amend the death register following a Welsh-medium inquest. The Claimants brought their claim for judicial review through the medium of Welsh.
The Deceased’s family (who were an interested party to the claim for judicial review and supported the Claimants’ claim) are now seeking to change the law to broaden the scope for bilingual registration has attracted national media coverage: Cardiff woman calls for death certificates to be issued in Welsh - BBC News; 'Gobaith' yn y frwydr i dderbyn tystysgrifau marwolaeth Cymraeg | NS4C | Newyddion S4C. That has led to their MP introducing the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Welsh Language Provision) Bill in Parliament.
The claim raised novel issues of interpretation together with arguments as to Welsh language rights, whether Article 8 of the ECHR was engaged, and what amounted to a breach of the right to participate in proceedings through the medium of Welsh.
Alys Williams appeared, through the medium of Welsh, before Mrs Justice Farbey at the oral renewal hearing.
Owain Rhys James has acted for the Claimants throughout, advising and drafting all pleadings and statements bilingually. He continues to act for the Senior Coroner for North West Wales in related proceedings.
Both Owain and Alys have a truly bilingual practice advising and appearing before the Courts and tribunals through the medium of Welsh. They have advised public and private sector clients on a range of matters relating to language rights and the application of the Welsh Language Standards; together with acting across all of Chambers’ practice areas bilingually. For more details, please contact their clerks.
R ((1)Senior Coroner for North West Wales (2) Senior Coroner for South Wales Central) v The Registrar General – Farbey J
The claim arose following an inquest conducted through the medium of Welsh by the First Claimant, sitting in the Second Claimant’s coronial area. Following the inquest the death was registered through the medium of English, only.
The Senior Coroners sought permission to judicially review the decision of the Registrar General that it had no power to amend or re-register the death so that there would be a bilingual entry.
The Deceased’s family were interested parties to, and supported, the claim.
Together with determining a number of procedural matters, Farbey J refused permission to bring a claim for judicial review at a hearing, having heard from Counsel for both parties, in a detailed judgment.
In respect of Regulation 53 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987, the Judge found that the provision determined the date on which an entry was completed such that any alleged error had to fall within the statutory regime to give rise to a power to amend the register.
Farbey J rejected the argument that that provision was a deeming provision which could be rebutted by the provision of evidence: here evidence that the Coroner had not provided all of the documents required to register the death to the Registrar.
As to the second ground, the Judge determined that there was no power under regulation 45 of the 1987 Regulations for a coroner to re-register a death. That provision was limited to situations where a coroner sought to register a death after a death had already been registered by an informant.
Ground 3 related to the statutory regime for amending clerical errors. Notwithstanding that the ground had become academic given a concession made in the General Registry Office’s pre-action response, the Judge concluded that contrary to the Claimants’ argument, that the Court was not required to adopt the interpretive tools of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Judge held that Article 8 was not breached because the statutory scheme contained provision for the correction of errors which was proportionate and that the family had access to a death certificate, albeit in English only. That scheme was compatible with the family’s Article 8 rights, the Judge held.
Finally, the Judge found that there was no breach of section 22 of the Welsh Language Act 1993. Where the inquest had been conducted through the medium of Welsh, the record of inquest was in Welsh, but the entry in the register was in English, only, it was not arguable that the right to use Welsh in the coronial proceedings themselves had been disturbed or negated.