Skip to main content

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

The problem with the planned system is that once it is on the statute book, it will be used far more frequently than any resort to inquiries under section 2 of the Inquiries Act. Once the system is an established procedure, it will be quite easy for Secretaries of State to make applications and, in a sense, to exonerate themselves from the onerous aspects of the responsibility. They will say, "The procedure is there. Parliament has set it up. There are instances in which coroners inquests can take place without a jury, even though they ought to be one." If I may say so, the Government have approached this process from the wrong direction. Because of that—although I have some sympathy with the Government's position—we will support amendment 2 to delete clause 11. The Government have not made the case that the proposals are the right way forward. Other means already available, which do not require quite so much soul-searching on our part, may be used, but only in the most extreme circumstances. However, I fear that the provisions in the Bill will be used more often.


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