|
Division
No.
2] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 11
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
12Certified
investigations: investigation by judge, inquest without
jury Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham: Obviously, if clause 11 had been struck from
the Bill, clause 12 would not have been necessary. Will the Minister
explain when it might be appropriate under the clause for the chief
coroner to conduct the investigation in
person?
Bridget
Prentice: The chief coroner would have to do that only
very rarely. After consultation with the chief coroner, the Lord Chief
Justice would terminate the nomination of the person previously
appointed; someone else would then have to be appointed to carry out
the investigation instead. The chief coroner could get a senior coroner
from the relevant area or someone from a different geographical area to
conduct the investigation, or he could do the investigation himself or
ask the Lord Chief Justice to appoint a senior judge to conduct the
investigation, but I suggest that it would be a very rare
occurrence. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
13Intercept
evidence Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
David
Howarth: Clause 13 allows intercept evidence to be used in
coroners’ courts, although only in certified cases. I welcome
the breakthrough that the clause represents in principle—it is
the first time that intercept evidence
has been made admissible in an English court. It would be helpful in
other debates, such as those on 42-day detention or control orders, if
intercept evidence were to be made admissible. The difficulties that
are said to exist before putting intercept evidence into court seem to
me to be greatly exaggerated. Other countries manage to do it, not
without some difficulties but effectively none the less. I think that
evidence from bugging is allowed, but intercept evidence is not. It is
slightly odd that civil liberties should be restricted to protect
evidence that the security services seem to have no intention of ever
using.
Given the
vote on clause 11, I am concerned that clause 13 will link the
acceptability of intercept evidence with the absence of a jury.
Although I welcome the clause in principle, I want to put it on the
record that I do not accept that link. I will not be bound in any
future debates to accept the point that intercept evidence could be
used further only in the absence of a jury. That does not
follow.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
14Duty
or power to suspend or resume
investigations Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Bellingham: Clause 14 covers the duty to suspend or resume
investigations. The key point relates to when criminal proceedings are
likely to be brought. We are looking at the old rules 26 and 27, and we
need to avoid any duplication.
Let us look
at schedule 1, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. The senior coroner need not
suspend an investigation where the prosecuting authority or the
director of service prosecutions has no objection to the investigation
continuing, or where the senior coroner thinks that there is an
exceptional reason for not doing so. That puzzled me a little, and I
would be grateful if the Minister could provide some examples. I could
not think of any obvious ones. Perhaps she could put the
Committee’s mind at rest and give some clear examples.
Bridget
Prentice: One example
is— [Laughter.] My notes actually say: as an
example, the police would carry out an investigation, taking statements
and analysing evidence in the immediate aftermath of a death where
criminality is suspected. The coroner would have a role only as
custodian of the body. Once his or her responsibilities in that respect
are completed, it would be a waste of resources for the coroner to
conduct a parallel investigation taking the same statements. It is
right that the criminal case should take precedence. The
coroner’s proceedings are an inquest or inquiry into the
establishment of fact, rather than the trial of a particular
individual. Perhaps it would be helpful of me to add that the coroner
must suspend an investigation if required to do so by the Lord
Chancellor on the grounds that the death is likely to be adequately
investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
1Duty
or power to suspend or resume
investigations
Jenny
Willott: I beg to move amendment 118, in
schedule 1, page 118, line 21, at
end insert ‘and must be resumed if there is
any likelihood that not resuming it might breach any Convention rights
(within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c.
42)).’. Amendment
118 relates specifically to article 2 deaths with human rights
implications. The schedule deals with inquests suspended for various
reasons, and with the resumption of that inquest after, for example,
criminal charges have been looked into. The amendment would insert a
requirement that an inquest should always be resumed after a suspension
if there is any chance that not doing so would breach the Human Rights
Act 1998.
Under
paragraph 7(1) of schedule 1, a suspended investigation
“may not be
resumed unless...the senior coroner thinks that there is
sufficient reason for resuming
it.” The
explanatory notes give an example of one possible reason: if a criminal
investigation does not find all the facts that the senior coroner
thought needed to be found, because it is an article 2 death. It is
welcome that the explanatory notes recognise that the state might have
enduring article 2 obligations following on from a suspended inquest
and criminal investigation.
The concern
has been raised, however, by bodies outside this House, that it is
questionable whether a criminal prosecution could effectively satisfy
article 2 requirements, given that the obligations of a criminal
investigation are completely different from those of an article 2
investigation. Although the explanatory notes recognise that the state
might well have enduring article 2 obligations, the
amendment would provide for the automatic, rebuttable presumption that,
where such obligations arise, the inquest will be resumed. As the Bill
is drafted, the inquest will not be resumed, unless the coroner thinks
otherwise. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on
that.
Bridget
Prentice: Even under the current system, it is clear that
article 2 places considerable responsibilities and demands on coroners,
who are very aware that they must resume an inquest if the criminal
proceedings have not established details of the broad circumstances
surrounding the death. The most obvious example of such a case would be
where a defendant pleads guilty early on in proceedings, which would
establish only the outline, rather than the broader circumstances
surrounding the death. In such a case, a coroner would be obliged to
resume the inquest. The amendment making the resumption compulsory does
not take into account the fact that, under section 6 of the Human
Rights Act, it would be unlawful of the coroner, as a public authority,
to act in any way incompatible with someone’s convention rights.
Under section 6, the coroner is already under an obligation to resume
the investigation in the way that the hon. Lady desires, so I think
that her amendment is
unnecessary.
Jenny
Willott: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments.
However, despite the general obligation on coroners, under section 6 of
the Human Rights Act, to act in a certain way regarding narrative
verdicts on article 2 deaths, earlier clauses in the Bill recognise
that sometimes it is necessary to make it clear that those obligations
remain. It strikes me that in the matter before us it would be sensible
to make it extremely clear that the presumption is to resume the
inquest. However, at this point, I do not wish to press the matter any
further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1
agreed
to. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
