Clause 11
Coroners and Justice Bill
10:45 am
Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, Justice; Harborough, Conservative)
Does it mention both? I shall come back to that. Inquest mentions the case of Azelle Rodney in the following terms:
“Azelle Rodney died in April 2005 after a police operation in north London in which he was shot seven times—the circumstances surrounding his shooting had nothing to do with counter terrorism”,
or national security, but involved criminal allegations.
“Azelle was shot after the car he was in was ordered to ‘hard stop’ after being under police surveillance for more than three hours”
in Edgware.
“In July 2006 the...CPS announced that there was insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution. After the CPS decision, the family was told by the coroner that the full inquest could not be held because large portions of the police officers’ statements had been crossed out under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act...2000, which covers information obtained from covert surveillance devices such as telephone taps or bugs. Lawyers acting for the family of Azelle Rodney threatened to take the government to court to show that RIPA was in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
It is not controversial, in so far as it has been said before, but Inquest and a lot of us believe that clause 11 is a disproportionate and draconian measure. It falsely equates the existence of material that should not be made public with the need to remove a jury and give the Secretary of State unprecedented and wide-reaching powers to intervene in the investigation of contentious deaths.