Jacqueline Maguire, known as Jackie, was a lady with Down’s Syndrome who lived in a residential placement for adults with learning difficulties in Blackpool. She was deprived of her liberty pursuant to a Standard Authorisation made under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Jackie died on 22 February 2017. In the weeks beforehand, Jackie suffered symptoms including stomach pains, collapsing, and a sore throat. On the evening before her death, Jackie repeatedly lost consciousness and collapsed. An ambulance crew attended but left after Jackie refused to attend hospital. A GP advised that Jackie attend hospital but that if she refused she could stay at her care home. The next morning Jackie’s condition had worsened, and she again collapsed. She was admitted to hospital, where tests showed her to be severely dehydrated and suffering from acute kidney injury. She later suffered a cardiac arrest from which she could not be resuscitated. A postmortem later recorded her cause of death as a perforated gastric ulcer and pneumonia.
An inquest into Jackie’s death took place in 2018. At the conclusion the coroner decided that Jackie’s death did not engage the state’s positive obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, the jury was not required to consider the circumstances in which Jackie came by her death, and resultantly gave only a short narrative conclusion that Jackie’s death resulted from natural causes.
Jackie’s mother Muriel brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the coroner’s decision regarding Article 2. The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s claim. She now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The respondents contracted with the appellant hauliers to transport a consignment of cigarettes from Poland to England. The road carriage was undertaken subject to the CMR. During transit, whilst the driver's vehicle was parked in a motorway service station in England, thieves stole a number of cases of cigarettes. As a result, the respondents incurred excise duty pursuant to a European excise duty suspension arrangement, under which the cigarettes were deemed to have been released for commercial consumption in the UK following the theft.
The respondents claimed compensation from the appellants under the CMR. The parties settled the claim save as to the excise duty, which the respondents claimed under article 23.4 of the CMR. Article 23.4 provides that, in the case of the loss of goods, a cargo claimant may claim "carriage charges, Customs duties and other charges incurred in respect of the carriage of the goods", in addition to the value of the goods. The House of Lords previously held in Buchanan that the words "other charges incurred in respect of the carriage of the goods" encompasses charges incurred because of the way that the goods were carried and lost, so that a cargo claimant can recover excise duty levied on goods stolen in transit. The appellants contend that the decision in Buchanan was wrong and should be departed from.