The Coroners and Justice Bill now progressing through the House of Lords should improve the current fragmented and archaic system, but Kevin Bridges is concerned that an opportunity will be missed.

In England and Wales, when someone dies from a violent or unnatural
death, or the cause of death is unclear, it must be reported to a
coroner, and an inquest must be held. The inquest is a public ‘fact-finding’ hearing to determine who the
deceased was and how, when and where he/she came by his or her death.
The inquest is a method for establishing the facts; it is not a trial
and the coroner must not apportion blame for the death.

The inquests into the deaths of Jean Charles De Menezes and Diana, Princess of Wales attracted considerable media coverage and public interest, involving many witnesses and documents, while other inquests and coroners have themselves attracted controversy. The coroner in the Marchioness tragedy, for example, had the hands of victims cut off for identification purposes.

A review of the coronial system found the process to be fragmented and out of touch with the modern world. The Coroners and Justice Bill, which is currently at Committee Stage in the House of Lords, aims to “deliver more effective, transparent and responsive justice and coroner services for victims, witnesses, bereaved families and the wider public”. It proposes the introduction of a new national coroner service, led by a Chief Coroner, and there will also be a new right of appeal directly to the Chief Coroner against a coroner’s verdict.

In an attempt to be more inclusive of bereaved families, a new Charter of Services for Bereaved People will be introduced to ensure that minimum standards of care are given at every stage of the process. Among other things, it is likely to say that the coroner’s office will contact family members every three months to inform them of the status of the case and to explain the reasons for any delays. Families will also have their views taken into account on the timing and location of inquests, and will be entitled to see a number of documents and reports free of charge.

An inquest is intended to answer a number of limited questions, namely who the deceased was and when, where and how they died. The Bill confirms that the purpose of an investigation is to ascertain only these matters, and also reflects the current position that empowers a coroner to widen the scope of an inquest in cases that may involve a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. This arises where the State (or an agent of the State) is involved in the death, but does not arise where only private organisations are concerned.

In preserving this status quo, the Bill is not without its critics. The campaign group ‘Inquest’ argues that wider inquiries that look to establish (in addition to the limited list of issues mentioned above) “in what circumstances a person came by his or her death” should be extended to all cases (including work-related deaths) where the death is a matter of public health or safety and not just where the State is involved.  

Another controversial provision within the original draft of the Bill was the power of the secretary of state to certify that an investigation should, in certain circumstances, not be held in public and should be conducted by a judge in the absence of a jury (a “secret inquest”). This was finally dropped in May of this year, after it received widespread criticism.  The suggestion that inquests could be held without public scrutiny, or the involvement of the bereaved families led to inevitable accusations of a potential cover-up.

While the introduction of a Chief Coroner, an appeals system, and a Charter for Bereaved People are to be welcomed, the passage of the Bill remains surrounded in controversy. The battle against secret inquests was fought and won but other battles rage on. These concern the lack of funding for legal representation for families, and widening the scope of the investigation beyond what merely caused the death to what went wrong e.g. systemic failures, and ways of stopping it happening again.

It remains to be seen if the coronial system in England and Wales, which has its roots in the 11th century, will truly be brought into the 21st century. However, it is likely that another opportunity will be missed and we will end up with a broadly similar system to now, in terms of what is important – e.g. an investigation’s scope and purpose – but with some window dressing in the form of a charter for bereaved families.

Reader's Comments Patricia Dodd 18/09/2009 After reading this article funding for families at inquests should be available not by any means testing. We found that solicitors wanted to know if we were receiving pension credit or income support, when we said no the answers we were receiving were pretty negative and it would be to expensive to take on the police, a total lack of evidence or information at our inquest and upto today we still do not know what happended to our son's medication which he had on him when he was arrested.
	PRINT  < BACK | TOP ^

Comment on this Story
To comment on this story, please enter your name and email address, and start typing. All comments require approval from the editorial team before going live, so please be patient. We will try and get all comments approved or rejected within 24 working hours of you posting. More details about the code of conduct for our comments function can be found here.
Name: (required)	Email: (will not be shown)
Comment:
Characters left : 500
Please enter the coded above to help us avoid spam
*I have read, understood and consent to your Privacy Policy