Letter to the Chairman from Mr V F Round,
Honorary Secretary, the Coroners' Society of England and Wales
I am grateful for the opportunity to give this
written evidence and for sight of the (unapproved) transcript
of the evidence of the Attorney General the Rt Hon Lord Goldsmith
QC. I have also read the Report on the Sub Judice Convention of
the Legislative Assembly of Queensland, Report No 7 to which I
know my colleague Mr John Leckie, HM Coroner for Greater Belfast
has already referred. If I may I will concentrate upon observations
as to the practical effects of the present rule, and as to some
alterations I have seen proposed, as they would impinge upon us
"at the coal face".
We do readily recognise the frustration that
must be felt by Members at their inability to discuss in the House
an inquest which they can see being discussed in the Press, apparently
unrestrained. Coroners keenly feel an opposite but parallel apprehension
when they see jury members arriving at court each day carrying
newspapers discussing the very inquest in which they are engaged.
The matter of media restraint is for the Attorney
General but may I note the important distinction he made. This
is that your House is of right "self policing" and seeks
to prevent problems before they can arise: the Attorney
General contrasted the position in relation to Contempt, where
he acts to prosecute in respect of pronouncements outside the
House after the damage has been done. This oversimplifies
in abbreviation, but if I understood him correctly it does suggest
a good reason for the current higher level of restraint in your
House.
I would add that juries appreciate that different
media outlets will produce a different view of the same facts
as a result of their differing viewpoints and house styles and
their need severely to compress information. By contrast, concerns
expressed by a Member of Parliament are seen to be in an entirely
different category. Again, we would suggest that their greater
weight of itself merits different treatment. This seems to us
to render inappropriate an initially attractive compromise solution
in the Queensland deliberations. This was the idea of a one month
pre hearing "ban" on discussion.
There is a further practical difficulty with
this proposal. It would depend upon the House demanding maintaining
and monitoring a constant running update of a multiplicity of
forthcoming court hearing dates, or making individual enquiry
as each arose!
I understand Members feel the obstruction to
discussion can be aggravated by delay in getting the inquests
heard. It is a matter of which coroners are acutely conscious
and various case management methods are being actively explored.
However, the coroner is totally dependent upon the time taken
by the various investigative agencies to investigate and obtain
relevant prosecution decisions. A substantial number then struggle
in addition to find any court available in which to sit. A recent
seminar revealed, amongst other acute resource problems, a further
shared cause of personal work stress. This was applications made
for a further adjournment of the inquest after the witnesses and
jury had been summoned, and court time set aside. When such applications
are made by family who may be having difficulty coping it seems
hard to refuse them on the grounds of the further delay: but the
criticism for overall delay later received by the coroner as a
result is keenly felt.
I mention this because I was grateful to see
the Attorney General's evidence that there was good reason to
maintain the same sub judice protection without altering
stance depending upon whether or not a jury was involved. In our
case there is again a merely practical difficulty: it may not
be clear for many months after the death whether or not a jury
will be called to the inquest: it can be affected by many matters,
including representations made at a later stage, almost always
on behalf of the family.
I respectfully concur with two more important
points of principle which the Attorney General was making about
the same jury/non jury issue:
Firstly I have no doubt that the evidence witnesses
give can be affected by concerns authoritatively expressed elsewhere:
this I have personally noted in relation to the evidence of expert
witnesses who sometimes have to be restrained from making reference
to comment in an inappropriate way.
Secondly the judicial officer sitting without
jury certainly could be affected in decision-making by comments
made in the House. Dealing with requests for an adjournment is
a particularly good example. In addition a court has always to
demonstrate that each individual decision can be seen to
be made on the basis only of what is proceeding in the courtroom,
isolated from matters outside it.
Once that is done we should, and do of course
pay attention thereafter to questions raised and answers given
in the House.
We are most grateful for the opportunity to
comment.
February 2005
| 
