Letter from Rt Hon Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
(P 30)
Thank you for your letter and for the transcript
of the evidence of Mr Denham, Dr James and Ms Keeble subsequently
sent to me.
I understand the primary matter being considered
further by the Procedure Committee is the application to coroners'
courts of the sub judice rule adopted by both Houses in
2001.
Having read the evidence given to the Committee on
29 November I have three comments.
(1) I can see no good reason for excluding coroners'
courts from the rule.
(2) Given the lengthy periods for which proceedings
in coroners' courts are sometimes adjourned after being formally
opened, I can see a case for treating proceedings in coroners'
courts as active only when arrangements for the substantive hearing
have been made.
(3) The discretion of the Chair is an important
element of the existing sub judice resolutions. It provides
an essential safety valve. Where issues of national importance
are involved it is for the Chair to consider whether, and to what
extent, permitting the proposed debate or questions would be likely
to impinge adversely upon the two principles underlying the sub
judice rule. He has to balance these different aspects of
the public interest.
Clearly Mr Denham was unhappy at some of the advice
he received from the House authorities about how he should exercise
his discretion in discussions concerning 7/7 or the shooting on
22 July. He considers some clearer guidance is needed: Q 19-21.
I have considerable sympathy with this. But without knowing precisely
what advice he, or the Speaker, was given, and what were the matters
unsuccessfully sought to be raised by members of his Committee,
I cannot usefully express a view on what further guidance is most
needed or what form it might best take.
January 2006
| 
