Coroners and Justice Bill

I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his promotion to vice-chairman of JUSTICE, if that is the appropriate title. It is an honoured organisation and he deserves the accolade. I know it is particularly important to him because he is succeeding Lord Kingsland, whose wise words we have missed already today. At present fewer than 500 inquests a year across the whole of England and Wales take place with a jury present. That is less than 2 per cent of the total number of inquests—around 30,000 a year—across the whole of the jurisdiction. Under the reformed system the vast majority of inquests, as the noble Lord said, will continue to take place without a jury and to be heard by a coroner sitting alone. Coroners are already men and women of independence of mind and increasingly well trained. Under the new regime there will be improved recruitment procedures with the aim of appointing coroners of an even higher calibre. They will be even better trained and, under the leadership of the Chief Coroner, part of a more structured and better organised profession. It is therefore right that they should continue to hear most cases sitting alone and require a jury present only when a clear and demonstrable need for an additional independent level of public scrutiny demands it. I remind the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, forecast that I would, that the Bill already contains clear provision at Clause 7(3) to give coroners discretion to summon a jury if they feel there is sufficient reason for doing so, even if the death concerned does not strictly fall into the categories mentioned in Clause 7(2). This is a discretionary power that we expect coroners to make use of in a variety of situations and scenarios as and when they see fit. In addition, we foresee the Chief Coroner issuing guidance as to when it would be expected that coroners may wish to exercise this discretionary power to call a jury, even if the coroner is not legally obliged to do so. There is also the safeguard of the provision in Clause 35(2)(g), where an interested person may appeal to the Chief Coroner if they feel that the coroner should have exercised his or her discretion differently. We therefore think that we have in place under the new regime a structure to ensure that cases that genuinely require it will have an inquest with a jury present. On Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we see no useful purpose in maintaining the status quo in relation to prison deaths and requiring that all deaths in prison, whatever their cause, should be investigated by way of an inquest held with a jury. If there is any reason to suspect the death was of violent, unnatural or unknown cause, the coroner will have to hold any inquest with a jury. I see no need for a jury inquest for a death from wholly natural causes in a prison hospital, for example, when a similar death, should it occur in a general hospital, would almost certainly not even warrant an investigation, let alone an inquest with a jury. There would, of course, continue to be an inquest into deaths in prison which do not fall within Clause 7(2)(a). I am in danger of repeating myself, but if the coroner feels that there is a need to call a jury because, for example, concerns about the standards of care, even though irrelevant to the cause of death, emerge from preliminary investigations, then he or she may summon a jury under the discretionary powers outlined in Clause 7(3). It may be the case in future that investigating natural deaths in prison or other forms of state detention is an area on which the Chief Coroner chooses to issue guidance or arrange for further specialist training for coroners. On Amendment 7, we entirely understand the argument that an inquest into the death of a person caused by an act or omission of a member of the security services should be held with a jury. I am sorry if I appeared disparaging to the noble Lord when we debated this matter last time; I certainly did not intend to be. However, I have to repeat that we are unaware of any such deaths being subject to inquests within at least the last 50 years. That being the case, I remain unpersuaded that there is a need for the amendment. The powers already contained in the Bill will be sufficient to ensure that any inquest into such a death in the future could take place with a jury. Amendment 9 would retain the provision in the Coroners Act 1988 that requires that an inquest must be held with a jury if, ""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"." We do not support this amendment because of the potential that it contains for substantially increasing the number of inquests that would require a jury to be summoned. This could include, for example, road traffic incidents. It has been argued by some campaigners that almost all road traffic deaths involve issues of public safety and that, therefore, all inquests into them should be held with a jury. At present, this is not usually the case, as many coroners choose to interpret the legislation so as not to include such deaths. In fact, if you were to interpret it otherwise, it could be argued that in very many cases you were predetermining the outcome of the inquest. Should this provision remain on the face of primary legislation, as this amendment would allow, there are genuine concerns, I submit, that there would be considerable pressure for this criterion to be more widely interpreted and more generally applied, meaning that a jury would be required in a considerably greater number of cases. Obviously, this would have a major effect on the resources required to conduct a substantially increased number of inquests with juries, but it would not, in our opinion, enhance the effectiveness of those inquests. Turning to Amendment 10, I again reiterate our view that only those cases that genuinely need a further and additional layer of independent scrutiny should take place with a jury. This amendment would mean that there would need to be a jury in all cases where it may be considered that an inquest might find that an act or omission on the part of the state or a public authority or its employees contributed to the death. Given the wide-ranging nature of what could be considered as a public authority, this could mean that, for example, all deaths reported to a coroner from an NHS hospital where the coroner felt than an inquest was required may in future require a jury, as an NHS trust would be considered as a public authority. Having a jury in each such instance where a public authority may be implicated would substantially increase the number of jury inquests, with a consequent dramatic and serious impact on resources. Amendments 8, 11 and 12 were tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. The House will know that currently coroners sit alone for the most part when considering the deaths of military personnel on active service. Our understanding is that, on the whole, the bereaved families support this; they want the coroner to sit on his or her own when dealing with their cases. This has not, however, prevented coroners from successfully carrying out investigations into those deaths and investigating all such deaths with a commendable, if sometimes uncomfortable for the Government, degree of vigour and thoroughness; on occasions, they have passed judgments and made comments that have been critical of parts of government. There is no reason to believe that they do not and will not deal with any less rigour with the deaths of military personnel who have been undertaking training or who are under the age of 18. As I said, the Bill already contains provisions giving coroners discretion to summon a jury if they feel that there is sufficient reason for doing so, even if the death falls outside the categories in subsection (2). There is also the safeguard of a right of appeal to the Chief Coroner if the family feels that the coroner should exercise his or her discretion differently. Our view is that these provisions are sufficient to enable the coroner to summon a jury when he or she feels that it is the correct thing to do. On a more general point, if Article 2 is engaged in a particular inquest, there is nothing in the case law of the European Convention on Human Rights that requires such an inquest to be held with a jury. We maintain, therefore, that the state can meet its Article 2 obligations by a coroner sitting alone or with a jury where there is sufficient reason. For the reasons that I have given, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.