Shropshire assistant coroner handed formal warning for using expletive during an inquest
The assistant coroner for Shropshire has received a formal warning over his conduct after he was heard to swear during the hearing into the death of woman's son.
Watch more of our videos on ShotsTV.com
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
After hearing a submission from the complainant's barrister, Heath Westerman was heard describing the arguments put forward by an advocate as “b*****ks”.
The assistant coroner then allegedly said that the duration of the inquest listing was “ridiculous” adding: “Who do these people think they are?”
His conduct was reported to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) who held an investigation, which found his conduct had been “ inappropriate and prejudicial”.
In a report of their findings the JCIO said Mr Westerman accepted that he had used the expletive, which he stated, was due to frustration caused by a poor submission by the complainant’s barrister.
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”.
But the coroner denied that he had referred to the duration of the inquest listing as “ridiculous” or said: “Who do they think they are?”.
He added that he had been under considerable pressure of work at the time, had apologised to the complainant straightaway, reported himself to his senior coroner as well as recused himself from the case.
However, a nominated judge for the JCIO found that in addition to using the swearword in relation to the barrister’s submission, the coroner did imply that the duration of the listing was ridiculous.
The judge found these comments “were both inappropriate and prejudicial”, but found that the coroner had not said: “Who do they think they are?”
In a statement, the JCIO said they had issued Mr Westerman with a formal warning for misconduct.
The statement said: “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.
“In reaching their decision, they took into consideration that the coroner had a previously unblemished conduct record.”
