Conclusions and recommendations
Inquests
1. It
is clear that the length of time for which inquests count as "active"
under the sub judice rule could seriously inhibit Members in raising
related issues in the House, perhaps to press for changes to prevent
another death in similar circumstances. We have considered whether
a change to the rule is needed; however, we believe that it would
be preferable to rely on the Speaker's discretion. We would expect
the Speaker to balance the desirability of the House discussing
a matter of public concern against the likelihood of prejudice,
which might well be low if the resumption of the inquest were
not expected for several months. (Paragraph 27)
2. We recommend that
the two Houses should consider jointly how the points at which
cases before coroners' courts are to be treated as active can
be more suitably defined. (Paragraph 28)
Tribunals
3. We
understand that remarks made in Parliament could prejudice cases
before tribunals, and would expect Members to take care to avoid
doing so. But we agree with our predecessors in 1963 that extending
the rule to tribunals would be too restrictive. (Paragraph 31)
The Speaker's discretion
4. We
agree that the exercise of discretion should continue to be a
matter for the Speaker personally; therefore, we encourage Members
who consider that the rule is unreasonably impeding the work of
Parliament to refer the matter to the Speaker, stating their case,
and ask him to exercise his discretion. (Paragraph 35)
Select committee chairmen
5. We
believe that there are circumstances involving sub judice issues
in which select committee chairmen may wish to consult the Speaker
in advance if time allows; otherwise the right course would be
to take the evidence concerned in private, so that consideration
could be given to how much of it could properly be published before
the relevant case ceased to be active. (Paragraph 38)
General
6. We
have already recommended that Members should be ready to put their
cases before the Speaker so that he can exercise his discretion.
Apart from a clarification of the rules relating to coroners'
courts, we do not recommend a change to the text of the sub judice
rule at the moment, although we may wish to return to the matter
in the light of experience. However, we remind Members that they
should not utter anything on the floor of the House which would
affect the evaluation of the merits of proceedings which are imminent
or before the courts, or influence the result of proceedings,
in particular the likelihood of an acquittal. (Paragraph 46)
| 
