Suicide and the inference of intent
Toogood v HM Senior Coroner for the Area of Somerset [2026] EWHC 634 (Admin)
Introduction
In this case the Divisional Court set out useful guidance on the legal framework for determining / inferring suicidal intent in circumstances in which there is no direct evidence on the issue and / or speculation that the death may not have been intentional.
Facts
The deceased was a 72-year-old retired cattle farmer. He died at his home on 28 February 2024 from a self-inflicted shotgun wound beneath his chin. He was familiar with firearms and held a firearms licence.
At the inquest members of the deceased’s family suggested, inter alia, that the firearm may have been discharged accidentally and / or that his mental capacity may have been affected by psychosis at the material time such that intent to end his life could not be inferred.
The deceased left no suicide note, and the evidence was that he had performed ordinary forward looking tasks in the days leading up to his death including filling his car with a full tank of petrol and buying a lottery ticket. Toxicology showed no alcohol or drug use at the time of death.
It was reported that the deceased had been experiencing low mood and increased psychological strain, having recently retired and sold his cows, which was a significant personal event.
He had recently been prescribed antidepressants, but there was no clinical record of any concern regarding his capacity, no suspicion of psychosis nor was there any report of suicidal ideation.
The pathologist considered accidental discharge along the fatal axis “possible but not probable,” with accidental firing described as unlikely.
Coroner’s conclusion
The Coroner determined that the deceased had intentionally ended his life by discharging the shotgun beneath his chin.
The Coroner inferred suicidal intent from both the factual and the circumstantial evidence available to her, including the inherent lethality of discharging a shotgun beneath the chin; the deceased’s firearms experience indicating appreciation of fatal consequences; the absence of intoxication or clinical psychosis, and the anatomical and scene evidence being inconsistent with accident.
Judicial review
Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on limited grounds which included the following which were relevant to the issue of intent:
- the Coroner’s summing up was inaccurate and speculative;
- the Coroner’s findings on ‘intent’ were perverse;
- there was insufficient evidence to support the Coroner’s finding that the death was intentional.
Mr Justice Sweeting dismissed the application for judicial review and held that the coroner’s conclusion of suicide was reasonably open on the evidence and the inquest was lawful.
Legal framework
In reaching his decision Sweeting J helpfully set out the relevant legal framework for the determination of suicidal intent, and the approach to be taken in respect inferences when reaching such a determination, as follows:
- In order to make a finding of suicide, two elements are required to be satisfied on balance of probability [Maughan v HM Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46]:
- that the deceased intentionally performed the act that caused death; and
- that they intended thereby to kill themselves.
- What is required is a determination of what probably occurred, based on the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences that may properly be drawn from it.
- There must be some evidential foundation for each element; gaps in the evidence are not to be filled by speculation.
- Once there is evidence capable of supporting a conclusion of suicide, it is for the coroner to evaluate the weight of that evidence.
- In so doing, the coroner may draw inferences from circumstantial matters and is not confined to direct evidence (see Lockley v Huntbach [1994] KB 606).
- Suicide may be inferred from the mode of death alone. See R v HM Coroner for the County of Devon, ex parte Glover (1985) 149 JP 208), in which taking 25 tablets in a very short space of time by someone who was well aware of the prescribed dose and frequency led to a verdict of suicide notwithstanding the absence of any other evidence of suicidal intent.
- The Coroner’s task is to ascertain facts rather than to discharge a burden in adversarial proceedings. Issues of intent, mental capacity, or psychiatric impairment are to be determined by reference to the evidence actually before the coroner, and not on hypothetical or unsubstantiated possibilities.
Application of the framework to the facts in this case
Applying these principles to the instant case Sweeting J Held:
- The Coroner was entitled to consider the inherent likelihood of the competing explanations, and was not required to exclude every speculative or remote hypothesis advanced.
- Her findings drew on the totality of the evidence, including the anatomical evidence, the deceased’s experience with firearms, the manner of the discharge, the deterioration in his mood, and the absence of any alternative non-speculative explanation.
- The evidence before the Coroner was consistent with the deceased placing the butt of the shotgun on the floor with the end of the barrel under his chin, held in his left hand, whilst he operated the trigger with his right hand.
- The Coroner was required to determine what probably occurred, not to eliminate every remote or speculative possibility. The pathologist’s view was that an accidental‑discharge was not a plausible explanation for the injuries. The weapon was in working order. The Coroner was entitled to evaluate that expert evidence.
- The Coroner’s conclusion as to intent rested in part on the inherent nature of the act itself. The discharging of a shotgun beneath the chin is, in ordinary human experience, an act whose natural consequence is likely to be fatal. It was reasonable to conclude that the deceased by reason of his familiarity with firearms would ordinarily have been aware that what he did would prove to be lethal.
- The Coroner considered the medical and psychiatric evidence, including the absence of any clinical signs of psychosis or intoxication, and concluded that the deceased retained the capacity to appreciate that consequence. That was a matter of inference, of the sort which coroners are routinely required to draw.
- There was no evidence that the deceased was in such an advanced psychotic state that he could not appreciate the risk of death or that his intent could not in those circumstances be gauged from the nature of his act. His change in mood and depressed state, noticed by his family and neighbours, may explain his actions rather than suggest psychosis.
Concluding comment
The applicable law in relation to a conclusion of suicide remains that as set out by the Supreme Court in Maughan.
When reaching a conclusion of suicide a coroner is not obliged to exclude every alternative hypothesis, particularly speculative or remote ones.
As clearly set out by Sweeting J, what is required is a determination of what probably occurred, based on the totality of the evidence and the reasonable inferences that may properly be drawn from it.
