---

Coroners and Justice Bill

That is the type of case I had in mind. If right hon. and hon. Members have different examples in mind, perhaps they should mention them. I believe that for the most part, the Government are taking comfort in an illusion. The comfort that they believe they feel does not really exist, because coronial cases and criminal trial cases are much closer than they imagine. In the end, it comes down to their distrust of the jury as an institution. They keep asking themselves, "Who are these people? Where do they come from? We don't know who they are. We didn't choose them. We don't control them." Yes, but that is the whole point of a jury and it is where the public confidence in using a jury comes from—it is not made up of people under the control of the authorities. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon are important because they would re-establish that principle. The question is one of balancing risks and what the reality is of the risks that the Government keep putting forward. They keeping giving worst-case scenarios and presenting them as though they were inevitable and would happen on many occasions. Of course, they also say, "These things very rarely happen", so it does not strike me as an enormous risk. However, on the other side there is a risk that provisions such as those in the Bill will be used in other cases in which a jury has been used in the past. That is precisely what the debate about the Menezes case is about—the availability of such provisions and their use much more broadly than the single case to which the Government have pointed throughout the debate.