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

I take my right hon. and learned Friend's point. Speaking as a lawyer and a barrister practising in the courts, I have rarely had difficulty accepting High Court judges' verdicts and judgments. However, the sort of inquest that we are considering will be highly emotive, give rise to serious public concern and be surrounded by a great deal of polemic, and the moderating influence of a jury, which I have extolled in other contexts in the criminal justice system—it also applies to libel cases—seems to be highly effective in reassuring the public that what is happening is not a procedure that is merely for the convenience of state authorities. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly is a classic example of an inquiry that may have been impeccably conducted, but I know from my mailbag that it has never succeeded in answering or resolving some of the basic questions that arose from the case.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
490 c83-4 
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