Clause 31
Coroners and Justice Bill
8:45 pm
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 31, page 17, line 11, after ‘judge’ insert ‘, former judge or former coroner’.
Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 25 to 30.
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
The Bill currently provides that the chief coroner may carry out an investigation, instead of the relevant local coroner, or may make a request to the Lord Chief Justice for a serving judge to carry out an investigation. I envisage that that power would be used sparingly, but it allows the chief coroner, or a senior judge, to take responsibility for specific investigations, for example when there are legal complexities. This group of amendments extends the pool of persons eligible to conduct investigations in accordance with the provisions in schedule 8, and that includes retired High Court judges, retired Court of Appeal judges and retired senior coroners, much in line with what the hon. Member for Daventry was asking for in an earlier debate.
Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour)
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend were to clarify the implications of these amendments. As I understand it, they provide the power to undertake judicial functions, not the power to run an organisation or anything of that sort. Is that the case?
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
Yes, it is. The provision is about carrying out an investigation. An example is the de Menezes case, where a High Court judge was appointed to deal with that case rather than the local coroner.
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
Yes, it would be a judicial function. That is why we have tabled these amendments. The amendments include the opportunity for the chief coroner to make the request of a retired coroner, for example, without the need to consult the Lord Chief Justice. Amendment 27 clarifies the reference, elsewhere in the legislation, to include not only a judge nominated under paragraph 2 of schedule 8, but also a retired judge or a retired coroner who is acting as the coroner.
Amendment 26 inserts the requirement for a
“person nominated or requested...to conduct the investigation”
to formally agree to do so. There was less need for that when the people who could be nominated were all serving judges. However, there is a need for a formal acceptance of a case where a judge or coroner is requested to come out of retirement.
Amendment 28 closes a potential loophole. It is possible, under the employment procedure, for someone to be a senior coroner and subsequently to become a High Court judge. Paragraph 3(1)(a) simply refers to a person who is not a senior coroner or a former senior coroner. Paragraph 3 would not cover a case where the investigation is conducted by a High Court judge who used to be a senior coroner, and the amendment covers that possibility.
Amendment 29 makes provision for hearing appeals. Normally, appeals against a coroner’s decision would be heard by the chief coroner. However, where the investigation is carried out by a High Court judge, a retired High Court judge or a retired Court of Appeal judge, the appeal will be heard by someone nominated by the Lord Chief Justice who is a practising Court of Appeal judge. Where an investigation is carried out by a circuit judge, any appeal will be heard by someone who is a practising High Court judge, allowing for the judicial levels to be kept intact.
Amendment 30 allows a coroner who was appointed under the 1988 Coroner’s Act, and retires before the reformed system comes into effect, to conduct an investigation when asked to do so by the chief coroner. Allowing only retired senior coroners—those who were appointed under the reformed system—will have little impact in the first few years. We have allowed that flexibility to make that pool of experience available. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will accept these amendments.
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of the amendments’ raison d’être, but I have one question for her. We have had a long time to get the Bill right, including a three-year gap between the draft Bill and the Bill before us, so will she tell us where the amendments came from? They are sensible amendments, but I should like to know whether she suddenly thought them up herself or whether she was lobbied by various organisations. What is their provenance?
Bridget Prentice (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Lewisham East, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman is right that this Bill has had a long incubation period. I cannot remember exactly the provenance of the amendments, but I suspect that having had all that time to mull the proposals over, the Coroners Society, among others, might have seen a gap such as that in the example that I have just given in the time. I shall tell the Committee in writing where we dreamed up the amendments.
Henry Bellingham (Shadow Minister, Justice; North West Norfolk, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Minister for that. May I suggest that in future she gives us the amendments, so that we can table them and get the credit?