Coronial Reform - The Vulnerable Lose Out Again?

On Wednesday this week the government published the long-overdue Coroners and Justice Bill. Among a wholesale reform of the system, the Bill will introduce the role of Chief Coroner who will be responsible for oversight and inspection of the Coronial system. In addition, a new avenue of appeal to the Chief Coroner will be open to families, whereas previously families - including my own - would have to embark on the long and onerous journey of Judicial Review proceedings.

Other provisions, as you may have heard in the press, are more concerning. The Bill as it currently stands seeks to provide the Secretary of State for Justice the legal power to 'certify' certain inquests. These inquests must then be held in secret. Initially this amendment was added in the name of national security, but the reasons for certification have now been significantly broadened to include protecting "the relationship between the UK and another country", prevention of crime, to protect witnesses and "otherwise to protect real harm to the public interest." This list is open to very broad interpretation and could affect hundreds of cases every year, and particularly those where they state itself needs calling to account.

The bad news seems to continue. Worryingly, the Bill in its present state seems to remove the requirement that deaths in custody will automatically be heard before a jury, imposing conditions such as that the death was violent or unnatural, or involved the police. Yet, as we know from my mum's case and from many others, systemic institutional failures - neglect, negligence, lack of training, etc. - can create just as toxic s mix of conditions which should be brought to the attention of the public.

Whilst this new provision will cover people in 'state detention' - including those detained under the Mental Health Act, and thereby providing that a jury inquest might be ascertainable - the Bill leaves the decision primarily up to the Coroner in question, granting them broad discretion. As I read it, families will still be entirely reliant upon the willingness of the Coroner in question to listen carefully and apply their own moral code to the case in question. As we saw in the disgraceful conduct of the inquest investigating my mother's death before by Andrew Reid, families may still find themselves having to take on costly and incredibly time-consuming litigation just to get themselves heard by poorly-trained judicial officers.

We have a duty, as a nation, to ensure that our places of custody and detention are safe. When a person dies in them, the state must be held to account. Otherwise, how different are these places from the asylums and workhouses of the Victorian Era, where no one saw and no one cared about the people there? Families who have lost loved ones around the country have long been waiting to see this Bill and it is fair to say that the positive aspects - a new 'Bereaved Families Charter' - are in large part demolished by the negative aspects. Luckily the Bill is only in the early stages of being considered by Parliament and we have time to lobby for amendments. Please keep your eye on the press for details of how the Bill is progressing.

My mother's case is still awaiting a judicial decision on permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. We were supposed to have a decision before Christmas but heard nothing. The Court of Appeal has a backlog and, as ever, inquest cases go to the back of the list. We are expecting some movement in the next few weeks when we will know whether or not we can proceed to a full appeal or if we have to present our case for permission orally first. We will keep you updated.

Here's to hoping that the New Year is going well for you all.

Steven