Proceeding contribution from Lord Alderdice (Liberal Democrat) 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, the amendment relates to the part of Schedule 1, on page 120, that largely replicates Section 16 of the Coroners Act 1988, save that it dictates that a coroner can refuse to adjourn an inquest when there are parallel criminal proceedings only when there is an exceptional reason to do so. At present, the test is that there is a good reason not to adjourn. We are really not all at clear about the rationale for this change. When we suggested changes in the previous debate on this, the Minister said that it was working perfectly well. We wonder why there is a change, so our amendment would leave out "exceptional" and reinsert "good", as it currently is. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 713 c754
- 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
- 2024-04-21 13:26:48 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586742
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586742
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586742