Schedule 1
Coroners and Justice Bill
12:45 pm
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.