Clause 11

Part of Coroners and Justice Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:15 am on 24 February 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Kidney David Kidney Labour, Stafford 11:15, 24 February 2009

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention, which shows that there are other situations in which such considerations are wrestled with all the time. I am grateful for that, but I have put forward other suggestions.

As a footnote, for completeness, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights briefing and Liberty’s evidence to us contemplate situations in which evidence is withheld from an inquest. Even for an inquest held in public and with a jury, the withholding of information has problems of its own. The jury is charged with coming to a conclusion about what caused the death, and we must consider the effect on that conclusion of some evidence being withheld. The Coroners Society has pointed out that it is sometimes a difficult decision to say, “The inquest needs to go ahead with all the evidence, but not all the evidence can be disclosed to the public”, or that, because some of the evidence should not be disclosed, it should be withheld from the jury, which would carry on and make a decision without it. They are imperfect solutions and sometimes it would be right to do one rather than the other, but there is no absolute. My proposal is a variant on clause 11 and new clause 10, and it is a sensible way forward. I look forward to seeing whether the Minister agrees.