Dylan Crossey: Inquest into 15-year-old's death stalls again as questions are raised over BMW driver's phone calls

Dylan's family and their lawyer as well as representatives from the police and driver David Harwood's lawyer attended County Hall in Preston today as the inquest into the 15-year-old's death resumed. Coroner Dr James Adeley opened the hearing by discussing phone evidence, which had been brought to the court's attention during the course of the halted inquest last year.

>>>This is why the five-day inquest was sensationally stopped last year

It involved a man named in court as John Middleham, but Mr Middleham's identity or any link to David Harwood was not disclosed to the court.

Asking family solicitor Sefton Kwasnik during a heated exchange, Dr Adeley said: "My understanding is the documentation doesn't suggest that David Harwood called John Middleham. Is that correct?" Mr Kwasnik replied that he didn't know what the coroner had seen, and that the family's own investigators had not seen the phone.

With Dr Adeley pressing for a "yes or no answer", he again asked: "From the phone seized from David Harwood, no calls from that phone to John Middleham were made, is that right?" He also asked if there was a dispute over the phone itself, to which Mr Kwasnik said: "it is difficult for me to fully answer the question", and he suggested that documentation - 200 pages long - that he had previously supplied to the court was reissued to interested parties. Dr Adeley agreed to reissue the documents, and due to this, decided that that a further pre-inquest hearing would have to be arranged in coming weeks.

What's the background?

Dylan, a pupil at All Hallows Catholic High School in Penwortham, was 15 when he was killed when he was hit by David Harwood’s BMW in Chain House Lane, Whitestake, in October 2016.

An inquest into his death was halted by Dr Adeley in September 2021, so the CPS could consider a gross manslaughter case against driver David Harwood.

This was denied days before last Christrmas, and now the inquest must be concluded.

As part of this, the coroner must decide how it proceeds, including whether it is held in front of a jury, as it had been previously.

The jury issue

A debate was held over whether a jury needs to be involved in the conclusion of the inquest. The decision is that of the coroner, and he heard submissions from the family, from a spokesman for Lancashire Constabulary and from Mr Harwood's solicitor. Dylan's family are adamant that a jury should be involved, as in October 2019, at a previous pre-inquest hearing, coroner James Newman had granted this request.

Mr Kwasnik said: "Tracey and all interested parties have lived with that expectation issued publicly in 2019." He reminded the court that Dr Adeley himself had agreed and acknowledged the presence of a jury in July 2021. He added: "The family is for a decision of consistency", and urged: "If at least seven members of the original jury are available, that should happen.

"Tracey's wish is for this to take as long as it takes. Tracey has to come to terms with the conclusion for the rest of her life." He said that the family would be happy for transcripts of evidence presented last year to be used in order to slimline the inquest process.

A spokesman for the police reminded Dr Adeley that there was "nothing stopping you in law" from concluding the inquest without a jury, and that he had already heard and drafted directions and listened to the evidence, as had the interested parties. They also said that if a jury was called, it would be "extremely difficult for them to conclude or undertake their own questions by simply listening to audio transcripts".

Mr Woods, lawyer for Mr Harwood said: "I agree with the submission of the police. What can be gained in terms of the quality of the evidence by hearing it again? My submission is that the evidence would not improve and assist the coroner to make a proper conclusion. There is very little to be gained by empanelling a jury."

Dr Adeley adjourned the hearing, to be heard again later this month, dependant on court availability.