Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 November 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Coroners and Justice Bill.


Coroners and Justice Bill

My Lords, this is a much more difficult issue than the Minister suggests. An inquiry before a judge, however eminent he or she may be, is simply unlikely to command the same public confidence as a hearing before a jury, especially when the hearing is determining the cause of death of someone who died at the hands of state officials. The Minister rightly emphasised that we are dealing with a very small category of cases, but they will inevitably be precisely those cases where public concern about the death is at its most acute and where the exclusion of a jury will prevent the inquest from performing its basic function of providing a process by which the bereaved family and the public can be fully reassured that an investigation has identified the cause of death. It may well be, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, that we in this House have taken the matter as far as we can. For my part, I ask the Minister to give assurances on two matters. First, will the judge who is appointed under the inquiry have the power to appoint other independent persons who have security clearance to sit with him or her in hearing this matter? Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that the report of the inquiry produced by the judge will be published in all cases in full subject only to the exclusion of any security information as approved by the judge?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c829-30 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Data protection Detainees Death Coroners Inquiries Electronic surveillance Homosexuality Evidence Incitement Homicide Discrimination Freedom of expression Terrorism Sexuality Homophobia
Legislation
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk