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
| 
