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

Clause 14 covers the duty to suspend or resume investigations. The key point relates to when criminal proceedings are likely to be brought. We are looking at the old rules 26 and 27, and we need to avoid any duplication.

Let us look at schedule 1, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. The senior coroner need not suspend an investigation where the prosecuting authority or the director of service prosecutions has no objection to the investigation continuing, or where the senior coroner thinks that there is an exceptional reason for not doing so. That puzzled me a little, and I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some examples. I could not think of any obvious ones. Perhaps she could put the Committee’s mind at rest and give some clear examples.

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

One example is—[Laughter.] My notes actually say: as an example, the police would carry out an investigation, taking statements and analysing evidence in the immediate aftermath of a death where criminality is suspected. The coroner would have a role only as custodian of the body. Once his or her responsibilities in that respect are completed, it would be a waste of resources for the coroner to conduct a parallel investigation taking the same statements. It is right that the criminal case should take precedence. The coroner’s proceedings are an inquest or inquiry into the establishment of fact, rather than the trial of a particular individual. Perhaps it would be helpful of me to add that the coroner must suspend an investigation if required to do so by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds that the death is likely to be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.