|
INQUEST REFORM: CAN’T PAY, WON’T PAY?
Radical changes are expected to coroner’s inquests, following the DCA’s recent announcement that a Coroner Reform Bill will be published shortly. The intention is that a new Coroners Act will be enacted in 2007, replacing the 1988 Act.
Background
The proposed changes stemmed from a series of critical inquiries into the systems of death investigation and certification, the systems for removal and retention of body parts, and the systems for handling mass fatalities, including the sinking of “the Marchioness”.
These culminated in the 2003 Home Office Report of the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Investigation, the 2003 Third Shipman Inquiry Report, and the 2004 Home Office “Position Paper”, the latter being an attempt to reconcile conflicting recommendations in the previous reports.
The consensus was that the existing systems of death investigation and certification were largely the product of 19th century reforms, and failed to meet the wider expectations of a 21st century population.
A greater role for bereaved families
Bereaved families will welcome the proposal to grant them the right to play a more active role in coroners’ investigations and inquests from the outset. These rights will be underpinned by a “Coroners’ Charter”, setting out the standards families may be entitled to expect, and a coherent complaints system.
Chief Coroner and Coronial Council
The DCA decided not to implement the Position Paper’s recommendation that a new national coroner organization should be created, replacing the system of local authority appointment and funding. However, it is intended that there will be national leadership and guidance, by means of a new Chief Coroner, accountable to Parliament.
It is anticipated that the Chief Coroner will have powers to audit and inspect coronial performance, including implementation of the Coroners’ Charter; powers to hear appeals, replacing the unwieldy and expensive system of judicial review; and powers to appoint judges and counsel to the inquiry in complex cases.
The Chief Coroner will also oversee coronial training, currently largely voluntary. The Chief Coroner will be supported by a national Coronial Council, with provision for lay and voluntary group membership.
Fewer coroners, larger jurisdictions
One of the biggest changes is the proposal to phase out part-time coroners. It is envisaged that they will eventually be replaced by a smaller number of full-time legally qualified coroners, 60 to 65, compared with the 127-odd coroners currently in post. Some existing jurisdictions will disappear, as boundaries are re-aligned with local judicial boundaries.
Fewer public hearings and jury inquests
It is envisaged that there will be fewer public inquests where it is deemed that there is no public interest in the hearing, for example cases of suicide, where the inquest will be concluded by a written report equivalent to an inquest.
Of more potential concern is the proposal to limit mandatory jury inquests to cases of deaths in custody or during police operations. This would exclude from jury scrutiny deaths in the workplace, on railways, and in other circumstances where the investigation is primarily the responsibility of other statutory bodies, such as the HSE.
Medical support
It is envisaged that the remaining legally qualified coroners will receive national medical support through a new Chief Medical Adviser. It remains to be seen how the promised local medical support, in addition to existing pathology services, will evolve.
The 2003 Fundamental Review recommended a “statutory medical assessor”, who would work in-house alongside coroners, and assist them with their “medical” case load.
This would include assisting coroners with the large numbers of deaths from natural diseases reported to them by doctors for technical reasons, such as when the doctor lacked the pre-death attendance criteria for certifying the death.
However, if funding remains with the local authority, it may be difficult to secure suitably qualified doctors willing to undertake such work.
Resource implications
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the proposed reforms, is the lack of commitment by the Government to adequate central funding. If the new system is to work effectively, it is likely to require considerably more money than the already cash-strapped local authorities may be willing or able to offer.
The unpalatable political alternative would be funding the reforms through increased local taxation. Let us hope that the proposed reforms do not founder when the relevant local authority says “can’t pay, won’t pay”.
DR PETER ELLIS
|
