Inquests in England and Wales
Judicial inquiry of unexplained deaths in England and Wales From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Judicial inquiry of unexplained deaths in England and Wales From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inquests in England and Wales are held into sudden or unexplained deaths and also into the circumstances of and discovery of a certain class of valuable artefacts known as "treasure trove". In England and Wales, inquests are the responsibility of a coroner, who operates under the jurisdiction of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In some circumstances where an inquest cannot view or hear all the evidence, it may be suspended and a public inquiry held with the consent of the Home Secretary.
There is a general duty upon every person to report a death to the coroner if an inquest is likely to be required. However, this duty is largely unenforceable in practice and the duty falls on the responsible registrar. The registrar must report a death where:[1]
The coroner must hold an inquest where the death is:[2]
Where the cause of death is unknown, the coroner may order a post mortem examination in order to determine whether the death was violent. If the death is found to be non-violent, an inquest is unnecessary.[2]
In 2004 in England and Wales, there were 514,000 deaths of which 225,500 were referred to the coroner. Of those, 115,800 resulted in post-mortem examinations and there were 28,300 inquests, 570 with a jury.[3] In 2014 the Royal College of Pathologists claimed that up to 10,000 deaths a year recorded as being from natural causes should have been investigated by inquests. They were particularly concerned about people whose death occurred as a result of medical errors. "We believe a medical examiner would have been alerted to what was going on in Mid-Staffordshire long before this long list of avoidable deaths reached the total it did," said Archie Prentice, the pathologists' president.[4]
A coroner must summon a jury for an inquest if the death was not a result of natural causes and occurred when the deceased was in state custody (for example in prison, police custody, or whilst detained under the Mental Health Act 1983); or if it was the result of an act or omission of a police officer; or if it was a result of a notifiable accident, poisoning or disease.[5] The senior coroner can also call a jury at his or her own discretion. This discretion has been heavily litigated in light of the Human Rights Act 1998, which means that juries are required now in a broader range of situations than expressly required by statute.
The purpose of the inquest is to answer four questions:[6][7][8]: r. 36
Evidence must be solely for the purpose of answering these questions and no other evidence is admitted.[7] It is not for the inquest to ascertain "how the deceased died" or "in what broad circumstances", but "how the deceased came by his death", a more limited question.[7] Moreover, it is not the purpose of the inquest to determine, or appear to determine, criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame.[8]: r. 42 For example, where a prisoner hanged himself in a cell, he came by his death by hanging and it was not the role of the inquest to enquire into the broader circumstances such as the alleged neglect of the prison authorities that might have contributed to his state of mind or given him the opportunity.[7] However, the inquest should set out as many of the facts as the public interest requires.[9]
Under the terms of article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, governments are required to "establish a framework of laws, precautions, procedures and means of enforcement which will, to the greatest extent reasonably practicable, protect life". The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted this as mandating independent official investigation of any death where public servants may be implicated. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, in those cases alone, the inquest is now to consider the broader question "by what means and in what circumstances".[10]
In disasters, such as the 1987 King's Cross fire, a single inquest may be held into several deaths. Some inquests, such as the John Lawler inquest, result in a prevention of future deaths report.[11][12]
Inquests are governed by the Coroners Rules.[8][13][14] The coroner gives notice to near relatives, those entitled to examine witnesses and those whose conduct is likely to be scrutinised.[15] Inquests are held in public except where there are real issues and substantial of national security but only the portions which relate to national security will be held behind closed doors.[8]: r. 17
Individuals with an interest in the proceedings, such as relatives of the deceased, individuals appearing as witnesses, and organisations or individuals who may face some responsibility in the death of the individual, may be represented by a legal professional be that a solicitor or barrister at the discretion of the coroner.[8]: r. 20 Witnesses may be compelled to testify subject to the privilege against self-incrimination.[8]: r. 22
If there are matters of national security or matters which relate to sensitive matters then under Schedule 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 an inquest may be suspended and replaced by a public inquiry under s.2 of the Inquiries Act 2005. This can only be ordered by the Home Secretary and must be announced to Parliament with the coroner in charge being informed and the next of kin being informed. The next of kin and coroner can appeal the decision of the Home Secretary.
The following conclusions (formerly called verdicts) are not mandatory but are strongly recommended:[16]
In 2004, 37% of inquests recorded an outcome of death by accident / misadventure, 21% by natural causes, 13% suicide, 10% open verdicts, and 19% other outcomes.[3]
Since 2004 it has been possible for the coroner to record a narrative verdict, recording the circumstances of a death without apportioning blame or liability. Since 2009, other possible verdicts have included "alcohol/drug related death" and "road traffic collision".[17] The civil standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities, is used for all conclusions.[17] The standard of proof for suicide and unlawful killing changed in 2018 from beyond all reasonable doubt to the balance of probabilities following a case in the courts of appeal.[17]
Owing in particular to the failures to notice the serial murder committed by Harold Shipman, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 modernised the system with:
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.