Select Committee on Procedure Written Evidence


Memorandum from the Police Federation of England and Wales (P 28)

CORONERS COURT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT


INTRODUCTION

  The Police Federation of England and Wales represents 138,000 police officers from the rank of constable to the rank of chief inspector.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the consultation document.

Our response to the particular questions posed are as follows:

1.   Should there be a separate sub judice rule for coroners' inquests?

Changing the rules of sub judice, to accommodate the seemingly very occasional requirements of Parliamentary committees could undermine the very evidential principles established over hundreds of years. We are minded to suggest that the answer could be found in some form of senior legal representation for the committee Chairman to be appropriately advised as the committee meets, and where the procedures or evidential submissions are likely to intrude into the role of an ongoing coroners' inquest or criminal investigation to exercise due caution and awareness.

We are at odds with some of the comments that the sub judice rule should not apply to coroners' courts. We feel there is a danger of undermining the sanctity of the inquest process with such suggestions, without a wider consideration of the cause/effect outcomes.

2.   Should the point at which coroners' inquests become `active' for the purpose of the rule be redefined?

Once again this is part of the wider debate on the whole inquest process. However, one of the reasons coroners' inquests are delayed for long periods is to enable the Police to undertake their work and investigate fully the incident in hand. Often such inquiries, by their very nature, including the incidents to which the Committee are concerned, require a lot of patience, dedication and inordinate police time to reach a conclusion. Hence a coroner has little option but to adjourn proceedings for Police investigative purposes. Where a violent death occurs, an inquest may follow a criminal trial, (generally not before) and it can take many months to bring an accused to trial. In which case the sub judice rule against an accused must be preserved to establish a fair trial.

One other concern we would highlight, is that such proposals could bring changes to the generally disciplined reporting from the media on cases of public interest. If Parliamentary committees can examine the facts outside the current legal framework, then would this open up matters for the media to do likewise? The PFEW have some serious reservations over the general thoughts being suggested here.

3.   Is the chair's discretion to disapply the sub judice rule where necessary an effective mechanism? How does it operate in select committee proceedings?

The PFEW cannot comment on the process of committee proceedings.

We do feel that where it is of national importance for the committee to inquire into incidents that are under either sensitive and delicate Police investigation, or subject to the judicial process then a mechanism could be introduced whereby subject to certain Parliamentary rules information can be given and witnesses examined within closed doors and hearings `in camera'. That said, we would wish to ensure that the chair's ruling and or judgement, were such a decision taken, becomes properly accountable, or subject to approval from higher authority.

4.   How do other Parliaments or legislatures apply the sub judice rule to similar proceedings?

The PFEW has no knowledge or research information from which to make any useful comment in response.

5.   Additional comments

Where there is a death as a result of contact with police, consideration should be given in all those cases to a delay in the coroners' court system until after the conclusion of any subsequent Independent Police Complaints Commission and/or Criminal trial that may be brought against any officer.

I hope the above response provides a useful contribution to the invitation for written submissions on this important subject.

January 2006





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 22 August 2006