Supplementary evidence submitted by Michael
Burgess, HM Coroner for Surrey
Many of us, individual coroners and many others
with an interest in the coroner system, have spent many thousands
of hours contributing to these two inquiries that resulted in
the reports. We received the Position Paper 2 years ago and have
now studied, albeit briefly the Minister's Statement and Briefing
paper and Hansard, too—I do hope that matters are moving
forward. It really would be most unfortunate if this opportunity
was lost and significant reform was not taken forward.
However, it does look very much as though the
prospect of a single national coroner system being part of and
integrated into the Court System has been abandoned by Government
and that this opportunity for any significant reform seems to
have been lost. As I make clear in paras 1 & 2 of my submission,
there is no national coroner service in England and Wales. Instead,
there are individual office holders each personally and exclusively
responsible for carrying on the coroner function in his/her own
district. It is unclear from the Minister's statement whether
her reforms will change this.
During both reviews, we all participated and
welcomed the scrutiny that had been given to the work we do and
the genuine appreciation and analysis of the function we presently
perform. The reports offered clear "road maps" for the
future. In paras 11-18, I make some general points about the 2
reports and the reservations which many coroners have about the
suggested new coroner service. There is obvious apprehension and
the longer the uncertainty continues, the more concern there is.
Some coroners feel that they have been left, deserted, abandoned
even.
A Body Focused system—The whole
coroner system was and is focused on "the body"—the
presence of the body determines which coroner if any takes jurisdiction,
empowers the coroner to authorize a PM and thence to take the
further step to hold an inquest. Without a body there can be no
inquest, no inquiry—the coroner has no part to play in any
investigation concerning the death (unless the SoS has given his
licence [s.15 of the CA] when there must be a connection with
proximity to the coroner's district).
Bereaved—There may well be tensions
at times between the wishes of families and the interests of justice.
Inquests were intended to view matters objectively—they
were not intended to reach conclusions only from the position
of the families. Of course we do and will strive to be fair and
helpful to relatives and others suffering bereavement but coroners
should not be expected to be other than independent.
The prospect of fewer inquests? —At
para 13.b, I suggest that while some reduction in public inquest
hearings might well be desirable, a large scale imposed reduction
might well be mistrusted and resented by the people most closely
affected—ie the bereaved—and by society at large.
That is not to say that there should be fewer investigations.
As I referred to a moment ago, I do feel that if the Minister
is going to reduce the number of inquests then this may be no
bad thing
Michael Burgess
March 2006
| 
