1 Counter Terrorism
Bill
1. Part 6 of the Counter Terrorism Bill in the current
session provides for the Secretary of State to certify that a
coroner's inquest may be held without a jury and to appoint a
particular security cleared coroner in inquests which are expected
to involve the consideration of material that should not be made
public—importantly, this includes intercept evidence. The
provisions allow for intercept evidence to be admissible in such
inquests.
2. These provisions were not mentioned in the Government's
consultation document published in July 2007. There has therefore
been no opportunity for the Justice Committee or the Joint Committee
on Human Rights properly to examine them. There is no analysis
of the human rights applications of these provisions in the Explanatory
Memorandum.
3. The Constitutional Affairs Committee maintained
a close interest in reform of the Coroners' system, which the
Justice Committee has continued. The Eighth Report of Session
2005-06 from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on Reform of
the coroners' system and death certification,[1]
and the Government's response,[2]
focused on the draft Coroners Bill which had been published on
12 June 2006. The draft Bill had been prepared in response to
publicity surrounding both the Shipman Inquiry, chaired by Dame
Janet Smith, and the Report of a Fundamental Review of Death Certification
and Investigation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, chaired
by Tom Luce. As a result of the Committee's Report, in which it
made serious adverse comments about the Bill, the Draft Bill in
its original form was withdrawn.
4. On 27 February 2007 the Government announced its
Response to the latest Draft Coroners Bill Consultation by way
of a Written Statement.[3]
That said that the replacement Draft Bill aimed to do three things:
improve the way that the system serves the public interest and
meet bereaved families' concerns; strengthen coroners' work by
establishing a transparent appointments system for a new cadre
of full time coroners; and create a national structure for coroners'
work.
5. The provisions in the Counter Terrorism Bill may
be judged controversial because:
- It is not clear that they sufficiently
guarantee independence of investigation and involvement of victims'
families. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(Right to Life, protected by law) requires that where a person
has been killed by the use of force, the person carrying out the
investigation must be independent from those indicated in the
events, there must be sufficient element of public scrutiny to
secure accountability in practice as well as theory, and investigation
must involve the next of kin of the deceased to the extent necessary
to protect their legitimate interests.[4]
A minister could be making the decision to choose the coroner
and exclude the jury in cases involving either a service for which
he had direct responsibility (such as the Prison Service) or in
cases involving other State authorities for which he shared collective
responsibility, such as hospitals or the armed services.
- There is inconsistency in the rules permitting
the use of intercept evidence in inquests (where it is proposed
that the use of such evidence be allowed) and criminal trials
(where it will not be allowed unless the conditions set out in
the Report of the Privy Council Review of Intercept as Evidence
have been fully met).[5]
This raises the possibility that a criminal court might convict
defendants who are exonerated as the result of an inquiry held
by the coroner.
6. We are very concerned that these provisions create
special rules which are independent of the Government's planned
"root and branch" reform of the coroner system. We have
had no time to scrutinise them in Committee. We would have wished
to examine the extent to which the Government's stated aim (and
its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights)
was adhered to in relation to independence of investigation and
involvement of victims' families as well as the possible conflict
of outcome in courts with different rules of evidence.
7. We draw the attention of the House to the need
for special care in consideration of these provisions and propose
that they be withdrawn pending more detailed scrutiny and the
Introduction of the Coroners Bill.
1 HC 902; published on 1 August 2006 Back
2
Cm 6943; published in November 2006 Back
3
HC Deb., Col. 80WS Back
4
See, for example, the comments of the Joint Committee on Human
Rights on these provisions in its Ninth Report of Session 2007-08,
HC 199, HL Paper 50, paragraphs 4-8. Back
5
Cm 7324; and see the Statement by the Prime Minister of 6 February
2008, HC Deb, col 959. Back
| 
