Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

Clause 8 is about assembling a jury, and the current situation as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that juries must number between seven and 11. However, the clause replaces that figure with one of between six and nine. It might well be a sensible move, but I would argue that what is in place at the moment makes more sense. Six is too small a figure for a jury, and I point out to the Committee that the Bar Council is concerned about that. Furthermore, Inquest has also made the point that since the R v. Middleton case, to which I referred earlier, inquest juries have enhanced responsibilities for providing narrative verdicts. Reducing the figure will put a greater onus on that smaller number of jurors. That is not necessary. Will the Minister tell the Committee what is behind that proposal? Is it going to save any money, and if so, how much?

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

Will the Minister also tell the Committee who might object in court to a particular member of the jury and in what circumstances? In other words, do the rules follow those with which we might be more or less familiar through, for example, the Crown court, or is there some special regime and a limited number of people who can engage on this?

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

I assume that it is the senior coroner referred to in subsection (2) who makes the decision about the number of people who serve on the jury, but what are the factors that will influence his decision in choosing which number to summon?

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

The reason why we have put in six, seven, eight or nine jurors is to give some discretion to the senior coroner—although it will be likely that the chief coroner will issue a practice direction suggesting that they should generally start with nine jurors. The idea is that if a juror fails to turn up or one becomes ill in the course of a case, it can still go on. It may be that some potential juror turns out to be disqualified when questioned by the coroner. That might partly be the answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s question.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

That might relate to the question of how big the jury panel should be, from which the finite number is selected, but I do not think that it answers the point that I put to the Minister.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right: it was a point about what size the panel will be. Those who can be jurors in an inquest are those who are qualified under the Juries Act 1974. The coroner will be able to question the persons summoned to ensure that they are properly qualified, resident and can be sworn properly to sit on the jury.

Unlike the Crown court, coroners only summon jurors for particular inquests, as we know. It therefore seems unreasonable to summon large numbers of people to serve, considering the changes that some will inevitably need to make to their work and care arrangements. So, it did not seem appropriate to summon far more jurors  than might be in the Crown court, as they are unlikely to be required. We also wanted to make sure that if for some a reason a juror dropped out part way through an inquest, the whole inquest would not have to be re-started and a new jury summoned. The coroner will have the power to summon persons to attend and they will be sworn either by him or in his presence. In answer to the hon. Member for Daventry, there will be no opportunity for interested parties to make objections to the jurors who are summoned.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

It is probably entirely my fault for being obtuse, but if a jury member becomes unfit for some reason and cannot carry on and the coroner wants to carry on with a reduced number of the jury, what has that got to do with clause 8?

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

Clause 8 is about assembling the jury and it will therefore be for the coroner to decide how many people need to be available.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

There is some confusion between the jury that sits on an inquest—under clause 8(1), it could be six, seven, eight or nine persons—and the wider pool of people who form the jury panel, from which the six, seven, eight or nine are drawn, so a jury of 20 could be reduced by ballot to six, seven, eight or nine. If an inquest has started, however, and there is a jury of six, seven, eight or nine, we either have to return to the Juries Act or we need to have some other guidance or statutory rule stating that, when a jury is reduced by illness from six to five, the coroner has a power to continue. That was the point that the Minister addressed and it has nothing to do with clause 8.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

I am sorry but I am totally lost as to what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. Clause 8 is about assembling a jury, so the coroner can call on a jury of six, seven, eight or nine persons, and will presumably call a slightly larger number to ensure that those who sit are properly qualified to be jury members. I am not sure what the hon. and learned Gentleman means beyond that.

Tim Boswell (Daventry, Conservative)

I wonder whether I can assist as a member of the laity. As I construe the clause it is about assembling a jury, which is actually the act of beginning an inquest. The coroner will quite reasonably want a hand of cards, and will then interview and swear in the requisite number that he thinks appropriate. My hon. and learned Friend is making a substantial point, which may well be addressed in other legislation, about the vires of a jury continuing when one or other of its members, having been assembled and sworn in, drops out. My tribunal experience was, of course, different because it involved adjudicating and there was no jury, but I nearly cost people a great deal of money by becoming ineligible in the middle of the process.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

I was watching the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to see whether he nodded at the hon. Gentleman’s explanation, because I failed to grasp the issue earlier. I will come back to him and the Committee on it, but he may well have a point that needs to be addressed.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some jurisdictions, the Crown and coroners’ courts share jurors so as not to call far too many people? Will she confirm that the clause’s wording does not rule out making surplus jurors from a coroner’s court available for an adjacent Crown court?

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

That is absolutely correct and it is a sensible use of jurors and their time, but I do not think that it answers the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, so I will have to come back to him on the matter.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)

The point is quite simple: it may well be that a coroner has a power to continue with a reduced number of jurors once a jury has been assembled. There may be a statutory power that allows him to continue with five when he has sworn six, six when he has sworn seven and so on. While it was interesting to hear the Minister talk about that, it does not actually have anything to do with clause 8. We may have other opportunities to discuss her point, but talking about a coroner’s powers to carry on with fewer jurors than he has assembled is neither here nor there in relation to clause 8.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

Order. The Minister has indicated that she intends to come back to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Knowing the imagination and ingenuity of Committees, I am sure that there will be other opportunities to debate the matter. I am beginning to feel a little perplexed myself. Perhaps the time has come to accept the Minister’s undertaking to come back on the subject, unless the Committee wishes to press it still further, and to move on.

Brian Iddon (Bolton South East, Labour)

May I have clarification on the point that I raised a moment ago? I did not get a clear answer from the Minister.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

I am happy to come back to the Committee with clarification on both points. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that I was trying to respond to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk regarding why we chose the numbers that we chose.

Jeremy Wright (Whip, Whips; Rugby & Kenilworth, Conservative)

I may have missed the point too, but we seem to have moved away from the key change here, which is to reduce the number of jurors that an inquest starts with from 11 to nine. In among all the other explanations that the Minister was trying to give, I did not get a clear answer as to why the Government think it necessary to reduce the starting number from 11 to nine.

Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)

One of the reasons is to give more flexibility to the coroners, because sometimes there are difficulties in assembling juries for coroners’ inquests, so it was to give them that little bit more space. It was as simple as that. However, I am not going to go to the wall on the size of jury in a coroner’s inquest. If Conservative Members want to revert to the present system, I shall happily listen to the arguments.

Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

We are grateful for the last suggestion. Obviously we shall not be voting against clause stand part, but we shall be returning to the issue, because it is important. The Minister has not answered my questions about costs. I am not convinced that post-R. v. Middleton it is sensible to move the numbers down, so we shall return to the issue at a later stage.