The Ministry of Justice is considering a return to the criminal standard of proof.
The Ministry of Justice has opened a consultation on whether the standard of proof for unlawful killing inquests should be changed from the current civil test of “on the balance of probabilities” to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The consultation is seeking evidence and views and does not indicate that a change will necessarily be made. Any resulting change would apply to the coronial jurisdiction in England and Wales.
The issue follows the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in R (on the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46. Before that judgment, short-form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing were historically subject to the criminal standard of proof, while other inquest conclusions generally used the civil standard.
In Maughan, the Supreme Court held by a majority that the civil standard should apply to all inquest conclusions, including short-form conclusions of suicide and unlawful killing. The judgment considered this approach consistent with the use of the civil standard in other non-criminal proceedings and noted that an inquest does not determine criminal liability.
The Government says some stakeholder groups have since raised concerns about the implications of applying the lower threshold to unlawful killing conclusions. In particular, concerns have focused on cases involving state-related deaths and the relationship between inquests and other accountability processes.
A Rapid Review was commissioned in October 2024 as part of a wider package of measures concerning police accountability. It examined whether the civil standard created legal, operational or public-confidence concerns, including how unlawful killing inquests interact with criminal trials and misconduct proceedings, where the criminal standard applies.
One issue considered by the Review was the possibility of apparently conflicting outcomes. For example, a person could be acquitted of homicide or manslaughter in a criminal trial because the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, while an inquest could nevertheless conclude that the death was an unlawful killing on the balance of probabilities. The Government acknowledges that the processes have different purposes, but says contrasting outcomes can create perceptions of inconsistency or uncertainty around accountability.
The consultation concerns only the short-form conclusion of unlawful killing. Such a conclusion may be reached where the evidence indicates that a death resulted from murder, manslaughter, including gross negligence or corporate manslaughter, or infanticide. Importantly, an unlawful killing conclusion does not establish criminal or civil liability or assign blame to a named person. It records the factual conclusion reached by the coroner or jury on the evidence before them.
The consultation also distinguishes unlawful killing from lawful killing. A lawful killing conclusion may arise where the evidence indicates that a death resulted from legally justified use of force, such as self-defence or the lawful exercise of powers by a public authority. The Government is not proposing to reconsider the standard of proof for lawful killing as part of this consultation.
The proposed change would also not remove the wider fact-finding functions of an inquest. The Rapid Review noted that, even if the standard for a particular short-form conclusion were changed, coroners would retain the ability to provide detailed findings through narrative conclusions and to issue a Prevention of Future Deaths Report where appropriate.
Unlawful killing conclusions make up only a small proportion of inquest outcomes. The consultation records 91 unlawful killing conclusions in 2025, against 39,118 total inquest conclusions. The figures show 59 such conclusions in 2023 and 89 in 2024. The Government says these conclusions can arise across a range of circumstances, including police contact, healthcare provision, custody and other detention, and workplaces.
The consultation is asking whether the current civil standard should be changed, what positive or negative effects a change could have on sectors such as policing, healthcare, prisons and workplaces, and whether different standards for short-form and narrative conclusions could affect consistency or fairness. It also seeks views on public confidence, the experiences of bereaved families and potential equality impacts.
The Ministry of Justice is accepting responses until 7 December 2026. The consultation is evidence-gathering only, and the Government says it will consider responses before deciding on any next steps.