Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 January 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

I appreciate that this is an area of some difficulty, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware that one of the reasons for holding an inquest is to satisfy the families as to the circumstances of a death. In an article 2 case, the provision and presumption is that there should be a jury. Indeed, that follows almost automatically at present. Frankly, the Government's proposals are really no different from their convening a secret internal inquiry of their own and then saying afterwards, ““We are satisfied that everything is all right.”” The proposals, as drafted, for the secrecy clauses and for the lack of a jury completely undermine the purpose for which an inquest is convened in the first place. There must be a better way of resolving the Secretary of State's dilemma than going down that road.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
487 c30 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Data protection Bail Administration of justice Armed forces Death Certification Coroners Juries Electronic surveillance Homosexuality Evidence ICT Incitement Homicide Health professions Internet Discrimination Ethnic groups Freedom of expression Personal records Prisons Mental capacity Pornography Offences against children Sentencing Registration Young people Security Witnesses Victims Technology Suicide Sentencing Council for England and Wales Information sharing
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk