Proceeding contribution from Lord Bach (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 21 October 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.
Coroners and Justice Bill
My Lords, to have an efficient and workable system, what is necessary? Let us take the case of a prisoner who dies from old age or illness, where the cause of death is absolutely clear. Is it in the best interests of the coronial system to have an inquest with a jury? Why, in the majority of cases of natural death, should the coroner not decide on the form of inquest? There will always be an inquest when someone dies in custody: the issue is whether there has to be a jury. I repeat that the failsafe here is that if the coroner, in the case of what looks like a natural death, thinks that there should be a jury hearing, he is entitled to have one under Clause 7.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 713 c744
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Armed forces Death Costs Departmental responsibilities Administrative delays Coroners Custodial treatment Finance Families Juries Electronic surveillance Evidence Liability Health professions Local government Medical examinations National security Public appointments Prisons Relatives Post-mortems Psychiatric hospitals Scotland Registration Standards Training Human remains HM Courts Service
- Legislation
- Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:29:09 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586710
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586710
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586710