House of Commons Amendments

House of Commons

Session 2008 - 09
Internet Publications
Other Bills before Parliament

409

House of Commons

Notices of Amendments

given on

Wednesday 18 March 2009

For other Amendment(s) see the following page(s) of Supplement to Votes:

297, 299-300, 313-15, 343-45, 371-79 and 381-408

Consideration of Bill

Coroners and Justice Bill, As Amended

Secretary Jack Straw

94

Page  6  [Clause  11],  leave out lines 3 to 16 and insert—

‘( )
The Secretary of State may certify an investigation under this Part into a person’s

death if—

(a)
an inquest will be held as part of the investigation,

(b)
the inquest will (if the investigation is not certified) be held by a senior
5
coroner with a jury,

(c)
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the investigation will concern or

involve matters (referred to below as “protected matters”) that should not

be made public in order to protect the interests of—

(i)
national security,
10
(ii)
the relationship between the United Kingdom and another

country, or

(iii)
preventing or detecting crime,


or in order to protect the safety of a witness or other person, and

(d)
the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is necessary for the inquest
15
to be held without a jury in order to avoid protected matters being made

public or unlawfully disclosed.’.

As Amendments to Secretary Jack Straw’s proposed Amendment (No. 94):—

Mr Douglas Hogg

(a)

Line  6,  after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
410

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

Mr Douglas Hogg

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(b)

Line  10,  leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Mr Douglas Hogg

(c)

Line  12,  after ‘detecting’, insert ‘serious’.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(e)

Line  12,  leave out sub-paragraph (iii).

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(f)

Leave out line 13.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(g)

Line  14,  leave out from beginning to ‘it’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(d)

Line  14,  leave out ‘of the opinion’ and insert ‘satisfied beyond a reasonable

doubt’.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(h)

Line  16,  at end add ‘, and

‘(e)
The Secretary of State obtains a confirmatory order from the High Court,

which order shall not be granted unless the court believes that the

Secretary of State’s grounds for issuing the certificate are properly

grounded in fact and law, and unless the court believes that measures

short of granting the order are not capable of adequately protecting the

public interest.’.

Secretary Jack Straw

97

Page  6  [Clause  11],  leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—

‘(6)
The judge holding an inquest as part of a certified investigation must hold it

without a jury if—

(a)
there is a protected matter that would need to be revealed to the jury (if

there was one)—
5
(i)
in order for the jury to be able properly to discharge its duty

under section 10(1), and

(ii)
in order to avoid a breach of any relevant Convention rights

(within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)),


and

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
411

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

10
(b)
the judge is satisfied that it is necessary to hold the inquest without a jury

in order to avoid the matter being made public or unlawfully disclosed.


If the judge decides to hold the inquest with a jury, the judge must not allow any

protected matter to be revealed to the jury unless it is a matter within paragraph

(a).’.

As Amendments to Secretary Jack Straw’s proposed Amendment (No. 97):—

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(b)

Line  2,  leave out ‘without a jury’ and insert ‘in whole or in part of the camera, but

only to the extent that it is necessary to protect the relevant information,’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(a)

Line  10,  after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(c)

Line  11,  at end insert ‘, but for the purposes of this section the disclosure of any

information or material to the jury itself shall not count as being made public or

being unlawfully disclosed.’.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

(d)

Leave out lines 12 to 14.

Secretary Jack Straw

114

Page  136  [Schedule  7],  leave out lines 16 to 25 and insert—

‘Appointment of Chief Coroner

1    (1)
The Lord Chief Justice may appoint a person as the Chief Coroner.

      (2)
To be eligible for appointment as the Chief Coroner a person must be—

(a)
a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge, and
5
(b)
under the age of 70.

      (3)
The Lord Chief Justice must consult the Lord Chancellor before making an

appointment under this paragraph.

      (4)
The appointment of a person as the Chief Coroner is to be for a term decided

by the Lord Chief Justice after consulting the Lord Chancellor.
10

The term must be one that expires before the person’s 70th birthday.

      (5)
In this paragraph “appointment” includes re-appointment.

Appointment of Deputy Chief Coroners

1A  (1)
The Lord Chief Justice may secure the appointment as Deputy Chief Coroners

of however many persons the Lord Chief Justice thinks appropriate.
15
      (2)
To be eligible for appointment as a Deputy Chief Coroner a person must be—

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
412

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

(a)
a judge of the High Court, a Circuit judge or a senior coroner, and

(b)
under the age of 70.

      (3)
The Lord Chief Justice must consult the Lord Chancellor as to—

(a)
the appropriate number of persons to be appointed as Deputy Chief
20
Coroners;

(b)
how many of them are to be persons eligible for appointment by virtue

of being judges and how many are to be persons eligible for

appointment by virtue of being senior coroners.

      (4)
The function of appointing a person as a Deputy Chief Coroner is exercisable,
25
in the case of a judge of the High Court or a Circuit judge, by the Lord Chief

Justice after consulting the Lord Chancellor.

      (5)
The appointment by the Lord Chief Justice of a person as a Deputy Chief

Coroner is to be for a term decided by the Lord Chief Justice after consulting

the Lord Chancellor.
30

The term must be one that expires before the person’s 70th birthday.

      (6)
The function of appointing a person as a Deputy Chief Coroner is exercisable,

in the case of a senior coroner, by the Lord Chancellor at the invitation of the

Lord Chief Justice.

      (7)
The appointment by the Lord Chancellor of a person as a Deputy Chief
35
Coroner is to be for a term decided by the Lord Chancellor after consulting the

Lord Chief Justice.


The term must be one that expires before the person’s 70th birthday.

      (8)
In this paragraph “appointment” includes re-appointment.’.

As Amendments to Secretary Jack Straw’s proposed Amendment (No. 114):—

Mr Douglas Hogg

(a)

Line  6,  leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Mr Douglas Hogg

(b)

Line  9,  leave out ‘after consulting the Lord Chancellor’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(c)

Line  26,  leave out ‘after consulting the Lord Chancellor’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(d)

Line  28,  leave out ‘after consulting the Lord Chancellor’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(e)

Line  32,  after ‘invitation’, insert ‘and nomination’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(f)

Line  35,  leave out ‘the Lord Chancellor after consulting’.

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
413

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

Secretary Jack Straw

120

Page  141,  line  21  [Schedule  9],  leave out from beginning to end of line 19 on page

142 and insert—

‘“18A
Certified inquest without jury where interests of national security etc

require

(1)
The Secretary of State may certify an inquest if—

(a)
the inquest will (if it is not certified) be held with a jury;
5
(b)
the Secretary of State is satisfied that the inquest will concern

or involve matters (referred to below as “protected matters”)

that should not be made public in order to protect the interests

of—

(i)
national security,
10
(ii)
the relationship between the United Kingdom and

another country, or

(iii)
preventing or detecting crime,


or in order to protect the safety of a witness or other person;

and
15
(c)
the Secretary of State is of the opinion that it is necessary for

the inquest to be held without a jury in order to avoid protected

matters being made public or unlawfully disclosed.

(2)
Where the Secretary of State has certified an inquest under this

section—
20
(a)
the Secretary of State shall as soon as possible inform the

coroner of the certification and of the protected matters;

(b)
the coroner shall as soon as possible inform every person—

(i)
who in the coroner’s opinion is a properly interested

person, and
25
(ii)
whose name and contact details are known to the

coroner,


that the inquest has been certified.

(3)
There shall be no proceedings on an inquest certified under this

section—
30
(a)
until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date

of the certification, or

(b)
if proceedings for judicial review of the certification are

brought within that period, until the conclusion of the

proceedings.
35
(4)
The coroner shall hold a certified inquest without a jury if—

(a)
there is a protected matter that would need to be revealed to

the jury (if there was one)—

(i)
in order for the jury to be able to make a proper

decision on their verdict as to the particulars
40
mentioned in section 31(1), and

(ii)
in order to avoid a breach of any relevant Convention

rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act

1998);


and

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
414

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

45
(b)
the coroner is satisfied that it is necessary to hold the inquest

without a jury in order to avoid the matter being made public

or unlawfully disclosed.


If the coroner decides to hold the inquest with a jury, he shall not allow

any protected matter to be revealed to the jury unless it is a matter
50
within paragraph (a).

(5)
A reference in subsection (4) to holding an inquest without a jury, in

the case of an inquest that has already begun, is to be read as a

reference to continuing the inquest without a jury; and where by virtue

of that subsection an inquest begun with a jury has to be continued
55
without one, the coroner shall discharge the jury.”’.

As Amendments to Secretary Jack Straw’s proposed Amendment (No. 120):—

Mr Douglas Hogg

(a)

Line  5,  after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(b)

Line  10,  leave out sub-paragraph (ii).

Mr Douglas Hogg

(c)

Line  12,  after ‘detecting’, insert ‘serious’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(d)

Line  15,  leave out ‘of the opinion’ and insert ‘satisfied beyond a reasonable

doubt’.

Mr Douglas Hogg

(e)

Line  45,  after ‘satisfied’, insert ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

David Howarth

Jenny Willott

132

Page  58,  line  3  [Clause  97],  at end insert—

‘(3A)
After subsection (4) of that section insert—

“(4A)
In the case of the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and

Regulatory Reform, the Secretary of State must delegate his powers

under this section to a prosecutor designated under subsection (6A).”’.

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

Mr Virendra Sharma

133

Page  98,  line  25  [Clause  153],  leave out from second ‘is’ to end of line 29 and

insert ‘not an excluded body’.

Notices of Amendments: 18 March 2009
415

Coroners and Justice Bill, continued

Failure by a government department or public authority to comply with an assessment

notice

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

Mr Virendra Sharma

NC38

To move the following Clause:—

‘(1)
If a government department or public authority has failed to comply with an

assessment notice the Commissioner may certify in writing to the court that the

public authority has failed to comply with that notice.

(2)
Where failure to comply is certified under subsection (1), the court may inquire

into the matter and, after hearing any witness who may be produced against or on

behalf of the government department or the public authority, and after hearing

any statement that may be offered in defence, deal with the failure to comply as

if it were a contempt of court.’.

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

Mr Virendra Sharma

134

Page  2,  line  1  [Clause  1],  at end insert—

‘(2A)
For the purposes of this section, the circumstances when the deceased should be

considered to have been in ‘state detention’ include—

(a)
detention by a constable or other public authority pursuant to statutory or

common law powers;

(b)
detention or deprivation of liberty pursuant to the requirements of mental

health legislation, including the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental

Capacity Act 2005, as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007;

(c)
the placement of a child in secure accommodation;

(d)
detention pursuant to immigration and sylum legislation; and

(e)
the detention of any person in custody or otherwise detained while he or

she is being transported from one place to another.’.

Mr Andrew Dismore

Dr Evan Harris

Mr Virendra Sharma

135

Page  4,  line  4  [Clause  5],  at end insert—

‘(2A)
The senior coroner may detemine that the purpose of any investigation shall

include ascertaining the circumstances the deceased came by his or her death

where—

(a)
the senior coroner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to

determine that the continued or repeat occurrence of those circumstances

would be prejudicial to the health and safety of members of the public, or

any section of it; or

(b)
the senior coroner is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to

consider such circumstances in the public interest.’.