I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that Intervention, and I hope that the Minister can clarify that point for us. The other lessons may also need to be referred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and I hope that the Minister will do so.

In July 2003, Julia returned to the Reading court to have an injunction with a power of arrest renewed. In addition to her original affidavit, she had sworn a further two, detailing the ongoing threats and breaches of the injunction. However, the injunction was reduced to an undertaking. Julia accepted that, because it avoided her having to go through a full hearing and because the police were aware of her situation and had installed a panic button. She was led to believe that Alan could be arrested, even without the stronger injunction.

We can see how the law lets such people down: to avoid a traumatic hearing, protections weaken for victims. Under the Family Law Act 1996, it is clear that the courts should not accept an undertaking when the respondent has used or threatened to use violence, as happened in this case. I hope that the Minister can clarify how that happened and say what could be done to give people better protection through the process—in particular, whether the police should apply for the injunction rather than the victim.

On the inquest, the first coroner appointed to the case had legally unacceptable connections with Alan but failed to exclude himself until the family threatened judicial review. I hope that that can be investigated. Even with the actual coroner, there were problems. There are different sorts of coroners' inquests. One has a narrow remit and the other a wider one, which is used if the coroner wants an investigation under article 2 of the European convention on human rights to establish system failure. In such article 2 cases, it is possible for more extensive inquiries to be made. Even if article 2 is not invoked, the coroner has a duty to be alert to the evidence presented and to adjourn if he finds any indication of system failure by an organ of the state. Any scent of system failure that might have contributed to a death should lead to the coroner adjourning the case.

Initially, the family decided not to pursue article 2, because they wanted to minimise their trauma and they did not have access to all the information. For example, Thames Valley police refused to produce the command and control logs for the family until after the inquest, which prevented them and their solicitor from discovering some of the facts and the extent of the system failure.

At a preliminary hearing in May 2003, the police defended any moves by the coroner to include witnesses that might indicate that he was widening the interest parameters. The police's attitude can be summed up by the words of the barrister at the inquest, who described the gluing of all external locks, which should have been taken seriously as a reason to question Alan Pemberton, as nothing more than £150 worth of damage—in other words, an accounting entry.

The family submitted to the coroner before the inquest a statement reminding him of his duty to consider article 2, but it was clear that he had no intention of pursuing that. Yet, as the inquest progressed, it was apparent that there were ample indications of system failure. The Highmoor case, which showed that police firearms policy was over-cautious, was well known to the police by the time of the inquest and should again have been a reason to look at system failure.

The coroner accepted far too lightly the delays in the police response on the night, suggesting that, for the first dispatch, if one deducts the time of the call, the time delays were less serious. That is crazy, given that the police want victims to stay on the line. The comment that

"The only way . . . Julia Pemberton's life could have been saved would have been if she had had armed police escort throughout the time that she believed she was at risk" makes a mockery of the police's duty to protect and preserve life. The coroner failed to pick up glaring contradictions given by the Thames Valley police officers at the hearing, which revealed the further need to review the case. These inconsistencies should have given rise to serious questions as to what happened.

The coroner showed a total lack of compassion and sensitivity towards the family of Julia and William Pemberton and in particular to Laura, the surviving daughter. He expressed no acknowledgement of the family's grief and offered no words of encouragement to Laura. Perhaps most revealing was when he remarked that William could not have done something to deserve being shot, implying that Julia did. In view of all those failings I hope that the Minister will agree to get that behaviour looked at, to consider a homicide review of the whole case and to look at how injunctions need to be dealt with in future.

This is about the two people who are killed every week in this country from domestic violence. I hope that the Minister will also agree that an apology is due to the family from the police and the coroner. It would be a comfort to this grieving family to know that their unstinting work has achieved something for others who might otherwise face the trauma that Julia and William faced on that horrific night and in the months that led up to those fatal moments.