Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, we are dealing with Clause 7, and it is helpful first to look at its structure. Subsection (1) provides that an inquest into a death, ""must be held without a jury unless subsection (2) or (3) applies"." Subsection (2) sets out limited circumstances in which an inquest into a death must be held with a jury. Those circumstances are triggered only if the senior coroner has reason to suspect, ""that the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention"," and that the death resulted from an act or omission of a police officer or a member of a service police force, or that it was caused by, ""a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease"." There is provision in subsection (3) for discretion that an inquest into a death may be held with a jury if the senior coroner thinks that there is sufficient reason for doing so. However, the mandatory requirement for a jury is now limited by the Bill from what it has been. The purpose of Amendments 16, 17, 19 and 20 is to extend those categories. It is notable that the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Jordan v the United Kingdom examined the state’s obligations under Article 2 on the right to life following a death in state custody. It held that the state must ensure that the deceased’s family are provided with the truth, that lessons are learnt to improve public health and that, if appropriate, criminal proceedings be brought. The European Court held in particular that an investigation into the death must be made on the initiative of the state and that it should not be left to individual members of the deceased’s family to bring civil proceedings. The European Court held that the investigation must be independent, effective, prompt, open to public scrutiny, and should support the participation of the next of kin. If those conditions are not fulfilled, there would be a breach of the right to life set out in Article 2. The House of Lords, in the case of Amin, confirmed that judgment and established that these requirements should not only apply where state agents were actively involved in the death of a person, but where the death was alleged to have resulted from negligence on the part of state agents. It is our submission from these Benches that there should be an Article 2-compliant inquest in all cases where the state has failed in its obligation to protect life. I have already indicated to noble Lords the degree to which Clause 7 limits the circumstances in which a mandatory inquest with a jury can be carried out. Amendment 16 would add to that limited number of people, ""a member of the security services"." In the other place, an amendment was tabled in Committee that proposed adding "any other state official" to the list of those whose actions resulting in a death would trigger an inquest to be held with a jury. The Government argued that that amendment was too widely drafted. It was a Conservative amendment. Mr David Howarth, my colleague in the other place, said: ""If the Minister thinks that the amendment is too vague, I ask her about this specific case: is she against adding the security services to the list?"" The Minister, Bridget Prentice, said: ""That would be a far better argument than that for the general extension to state officials".—[Official Report, Commons, Coroners and Justice Bill Committee, 10/2/09; cols. 212-3.]" That is what has inspired us to add, ""a member of the security services"," to the list of people where an inquest with a jury must be held. We are encouraged by the Minister about that, although frankly I do not think that it goes far enough to meet the requirements of the European Court. Amendment 17 would add to the circumstances something that is already existing law. We propose to add to the illustrations where an inquest must be held with a jury paragraph (d), which says, ""that the death occurred in circumstances the continuance or possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the health or safety of the public or any section of the public"." The purpose of that is to repeat the existing law. The Coroners Act 1988 provided a requirement to summon a jury in those cases, so this Bill takes a step back in dealing with cases in which continuance or possible recurrence prejudicial to health or safety is concerned. The wording of the amendment was invoked in a 2007 High Court case, involving the deputy coroner of the Queen’s household, to ensure that an inquest occurred into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. That was triggered by the ability of the paparazzi to behave as they did in the hours before the deceased came by their deaths. The inquest was ordered to be held in those circumstances. Amendments 19 and 20 would add to the Bill, ""that the death otherwise resulted from an act or omission of a public authority"—" that is, a person or body who, ""would be so considered under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998"." In those circumstances, it is imperative that a jury be summoned for the purposes of hearing the inquest. The jury is the most democratic institution that we have in this country. In modern times, the jury is more democratic than Parliament, in that it allows the voice of the people to be heard, to set the standards and to come to conclusions, and it is in those circumstances where state officials have misbehaved one way or another that the jury’s role is most appropriate. I support the amendment.