Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Heath (Liberal Democrat) 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 whether the Lord Chancellor overstates a judge's latitude for determination in this matter. From my reading of amendment 97, the judge does not have the capacity to determine more than whether a protected matter would need to be revealed in order for the inquest to take place, and that it would therefore be necessary to hold an inquest without a jury in order to prevent it from being revealed. The judge does not appear to enjoy the clear latitude to determine whether the certification process that the Secretary of State undertook is, of necessity, correct. Perhaps I am misreading the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c79 
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