Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 March 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
I wonder if the Secretary of State is correct about this. The reason for having an inquest—one of the main criteria, as defined in the case of Amin—is to satisfy the families, not to provide an explanation for the benefit of the state alone, yet the system that is to be set up will never satisfy families. In those circumstances, it would be better to take the inquiry route, which would of course lead to a great deal of condemnation but would at least be clear that there is no attempt to skew the coronial system in a way that was never intended. I feel strongly that what he is trying to do, doubtless for good reasons, will undermine the system, not enhance it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 490 c78
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Data protection Crime prevention Courts Armed forces Death Coroners Juries Evidence Judges Legal representation Immunity certificates Foreign relations National security Northern Ireland Protection Parliamentary scrutiny Public inquiries Scotland Standards Terrorism Witnesses High Court
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:52:52 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543378
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543378
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_543378