Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 118, in schedule 1, page 118, line 21, at end insert

‘and must be resumed if there is any likelihood that not resuming it might breach any Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).’.

Amendment 118 relates specifically to article 2 deaths with human rights implications. The schedule deals with inquests suspended for various reasons, and with the resumption of that inquest after, for example, criminal charges have been looked into. The amendment would insert a requirement that an inquest should always be resumed after a suspension if there is any chance that not doing so would breach the Human Rights Act 1998.

Under paragraph 7(1) of schedule 1, a suspended investigation

“may not be resumed unless...the senior coroner thinks that there is sufficient reason for resuming it.”

The explanatory notes give an example of one possible reason: if a criminal investigation does not find all the facts that the senior coroner thought needed to be found, because it is an article 2 death. It is welcome that the explanatory notes recognise that the state might have enduring article 2 obligations following on from a suspended inquest and criminal investigation.

The concern has been raised, however, by bodies outside this House, that it is questionable whether a criminal prosecution could effectively satisfy article 2 requirements, given that the obligations of a criminal investigation are completely different from those of an article 2 investigation. Although the explanatory notes recognise that the state might well have enduring article 2 obligations, the amendment would provide for the automatic, rebuttable presumption that, where such obligations arise, the inquest will be resumed. As the Bill is drafted, the inquest will not be resumed, unless the coroner thinks otherwise. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on that.

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

Even under the current system, it is clear that article 2 places considerable responsibilities and demands on coroners, who are very aware that they must resume an inquest if the criminal proceedings have not established details of the broad circumstances surrounding the death. The most obvious example of such a case would be where a defendant pleads guilty early on in proceedings, which would establish only the outline, rather than the broader circumstances surrounding the death. In such a case, a coroner would be obliged to resume the inquest. The amendment making the resumption compulsory does not take into account the fact that, under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, it would be unlawful of the coroner, as a public authority, to act in any way incompatible with someone’s convention rights. Under section 6, the coroner is already under an obligation to resume the investigation in the way that the hon. Lady desires, so I think that her amendment is unnecessary.

Jennifer Willott (Cardiff Central, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. However, despite the general obligation on coroners, under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, to act in a certain way regarding narrative verdicts on article 2 deaths, earlier clauses in the Bill recognise that sometimes it is necessary to make it clear that those obligations  remain. It strikes me that in the matter before us it would be sensible to make it extremely clear that the presumption is to resume the inquest. However, at this point, I do not wish to press the matter any further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.