Let me pursue the point that I was making. Let us suppose for a moment that a young soldier has been killed as a result of being sent on patrol in a Land Rover that is not adequately protected against landmines. Let us suppose that that fact emerges in the course of an inquest. Do the provisions of the Bill prevent the coroner or a jury from making that absolutely clear in the verdict or decision that they make as a result of the inquest? That is the problem. It may very well inhibit a jury or a coroner to be told: "You cannot determine civil liability in this case", when they are faced with the clearest evidence that inadequate provision has been made for the safety of the young soldier.
I give that only as an example; I could follow it through with factory cases and many other instances, as the noble Lord will appreciate. I would be grateful for his assurance that a jury or a coroner can properly comment and come to a conclusion where there is clear evidence of failure of system or process—the provision of adequate equipment or something of that kind.
Coroners and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c617 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:05:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564375
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564375
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_564375