---

Coroners and Justice Bill

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for at least being here now. The problem with his argument is clear when we examine amendment 97, especially what it asks judges to do. My experience of High Court judges is that they apply the words of the statute as given to them. If they apply the words of what would become clause 11(6)(b)—thinking in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks—they will always conclude that it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury. What the judge is asked to do is satisfy himself, or herself, that""it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury in order to avoid in order to avoid the matter being made public"." If it is the case that juries are leaky in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplates, surely that will always be the case.