Coroners and Justice Bill

I support the amendments that have been spoken to. On the question of civil liability, it should be realised that, in practice, when dealing with an accident case, the very first thing that a solicitor or counsel will look for is the inquest transcript and findings. If certain facts emerge in the course of the inquest, or if certain witnesses give evidence and the coroner comes to a particular view, it is very powerful material that will encourage an insurance company to settle the case so that no litigation follows. Of course, if there is litigation, the fact that the inquest has come to a particular view is, in civil cases, of no consequence. The court will decide on the evidence that is produced before it. However, the inquest is the starting point for the solicitor in looking at how to approach an insurance company to settle a claim. In the case of criminal liability, the old rule used to be that a coroner’s jury could commit a defendant or named person to the assizes. I recall having just such a case as a young solicitor. A baby had died at the age of six or 10 weeks and there was a great deal of controversy over how that death had occurred. The coroner’s jury committed the case to the assizes, but the practice was that the Director of Public Prosecutions would then hold ordinary committal proceedings in a magistrates’ court. I appeared as a solicitor for the father of the baby in the magistrates’ court and secured his acquittal at that point. When I was about 23 or 24, I regarded that as a great victory, but 15 years later I was told by the paediatrician whom I had cross-examined that my client had killed his second child and then confessed to having killed his first child. That has coloured my view of acquittals ever since. However, that is not the system that operates at the moment. Clearly, no coroner’s verdict, or a jury’s verdict, can determine either criminal or civil liability. However, it has its place in determining whether civil liability can be established to the satisfaction of an insurance company that will settle the claim. For that reason I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and consider that the Bill as drafted is far too narrowly confined as regards the purpose and significance of a jury’s verdict.