Clause 7
5:30 pm
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
The clause is all about whether a jury is required, and I entirely accept that having a jury sit with a coroner will be the exception rather than the rule. The overwhelming majority of inquests take place without a jury, and it would be completely impractical if that were not the case, because the costs and logistical implications of having a jury are significant. On the other hand, however, having a jury in place in an inquest is a comforting factor for the bereaved, and we should not ignore it, because we are discussing families who will be going through an appalling period in their lives. They will have lost someone, often in tragic, unexplained or violent circumstances, and having a jury in place can provide a great deal of comfort. They feel that because a jury is made up of ordinary people like them, it is more likely to be sympathetic and understanding. We are not talking about the adversarial characteristics of a Crown court, but about a completely different system altogether. In that respect, the clause—in particular, subsection (2)—is too restrictive. I entirely accept, however, that we have what we might call an escape provision in subsection (3), which states:
“An inquest into a death may be held with a jury if the senior coroner thinks that there is sufficient reason for doing so.”
So, there is a fall-back position.
Amendment 94 would enable any person falling within clause 36(2)(a) or (b) to make a request for a jury to be empanelled, and it would be for the coroner to decide. Amendment 95 would extend the grounds on which a jury could be used and empanelled and add to the existing list private hospitals, so the situation could involve not only someone dying of unnatural causes in a state hospital, but someone doing so in a private hospital.