A fresh inquest is to be held into the death of Susan Nicholson, who was murdered by her boyfriend Robert Trigg, after her parents won a High Court challenge.
Ms Nicholson, 52, was murdered in 2011, five years after Trigg killed another lover, 35-year-old Caroline Devlin, in 2006.
Neither death was initially deemed suspicious by police. Ms Nicholson’s parents, Elizabeth and Peter Skelton, brought a legal challenge against the senior coroner for West Sussex over the scope of a fresh inquest into their daughter’s death.
Lawyers for the couple claimed the senior coroner was wrong not to order a full inquest into the death, arguing there were police failings in the case which should be examined.
In a ruling yesterday, Lord Justice Popplewell and Mr Justice Jay allowed Mr and Mrs Skelton’s challenge, ruling a full inquest must take place. In their judgment, the senior judges said they were not finding that the police “were in fact guilty of any failings, or in breach of the operational duties”.
They said: “Our conclusion is merely that that can credibly be suggested, so that an inquest should look into whether that is so.
“It may find no criticism of the police is justified, or that any criticisms are isolated failures and not serious. That will be a matter for investigation at the inquest.”
Mr Skelton said the family is “relieved” at the ruling and hope they will now be able to get the answers they need at a fresh inquest.
He said: “We are really relieved now and feel we are getting somewhere because there will be another inquest and we hope we will get the answers we have been waiting for.
“We might have to wait a few months for the inquest but we are certainly making progress.”
Trigg was jailed for at least 25 years in 2017 for Ms Devlin’s manslaughter and Ms Nicholson’s murder.
After his conviction, the High Court quashed the original inquest into Ms Nicholson’s death, which made a finding of accidental death, and ordered a new inquest be held.
The senior coroner for West Sussex ruled this would be a fresh short inquest, with no witnesses questioned.
Heather Williams, QC, barrister for Mr and Mrs Skelton, told the High Court at a hearing earlier that the couple had argued to the coroner the “circumstances leading up to Susan’s death involved arguable breaches by Sussex Police”.
They said there should be a full inquest under Article 2, the right to life, of the Human Rights Act, which can scrutinise the role of public bodies in a person’s death.
Ms Williams said the couple had argued the force had breached its duty to “take reasonable steps to protect against the real and immediate risk to life posed by Robert Trigg towards Susan Nicholson” as well as its duty to “conduct an effective investigation into a death that may amount to the unlawful taking of life, in relation to Caroline Devlin”.
In her ruling last year, the senior coroner “indicated she was not satisfied there was an arguable breach of either of these obligations and that accordingly she was not obliged to conduct an Article 2 compliant inquest”, Ms Williams said.
It is this decision Ms Nicholson’s parents challenged at the High Court. The senior coroner remained neutral in the challenge.
Sussex Police, which is an interested party in the case, argued Mr and Mrs Skelton’s claim should be dismissed.
Lawyers for the force argued the senior coroner’s decision was not unreasonable.
Mr Skelton accused the force of making the process “much harder and more stressful” by arguing against the request while “threatening us with a large bill of costs if we had not been successful”.
He added: “We want to know whether Susan’s death could have been prevented, so this doesn’t happen again and other families don’t have to go through the pain and distress that we have.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here