The Coroners Justice Act 2009 Christopher P Dorries

The Coroners & Justice Act 2009 Christopher P Dorries OBE HM Coroner South Yorkshire (West)

Starting point q Target date is April 2012 q Coroners Rules and Regulations yet to be written – see consultation paper q Thus talking about detail is not yet possible q Charter for the Bereaved is yet to be written q Will there be other Charters for court users? q Shadow Chief Coroner to be announced shortly

Some problems q Lots of good ideas – but where are the resources coming from? q Much reliance seems to be placed on a hope that the Medical Examiner proposals will cut the coronial caseload. . . q No real measures to tackle lack of decent court accommodation q So much for ‘root and branch reform’!

Changes from current practice q A Chief Coroner to provide leadership § guidance should aid consistency over time § but he/she holds no budget + it’s not a ‘national service’ q Doctors no longer eligible for appointment q Terminology: coroners become ‘senior coroners’ and all deputies become ‘assistant coroners’. q New concept of an ‘investigation’ which may, or may not, lead to an inquest – e. g. await toxicology result or perhaps an expert opinion

Reporting of deaths q Rules will provide that doctors must report certain categories of death to the coroner q But there will be no specific penalty, even for a wilful and deliberate failure! q Criteria must be based on statutory jurisdiction so no great change in reportable deaths q May lead to greater consistency in time q Work on this is relatively advanced

Jurisdiction q The criteria for the coroner’s jurisdiction remain much as before (violent, unnatural or unknown) q But a death in prison now includes ‘in state detention’ which specifically means MHA order. q Thus MHA patient now has an inquest even if the death is natural q But a ‘state detention’ inquest need not be before a jury unless violent, unnatural or unknown. This may cause difficulties? q Jurisdiction is still geographical but rather less rigid so inquests may be moved

New powers of investigation q Power on warrant from the Chief Coroner to enter, search and seize. q Consultation document discusses how this might work q Power to require a written statement or report within a set time, punishable by a fine (Schedule 5) q Coroner may summon a witness as before but now can require that an item or document be produced for examination, punishable by a fine (Schedule 5) q Specific criminal offences of distorting or altering a document, and for concealment or destruction of evidence, punishable by imprisonment

The inquest q Little change to inquest practice save for: q Increased provision for disclosure q Specific recognition of ‘in what circumstances’ q There may be guidance on the use of narrative verdicts which are disliked by ONS q Some minor changes on juvenile witnesses

Juries q Basic principles remain the same, still between 7 -11 q Police deaths requirement moves from “in police custody or resulted from an injury caused by an officer” etc to “death resulted from an act or omission of a police officer in purported execution of duty” q Notifiable accident, poisoning or disease requirement remains despite efforts to remove this q Whilst majority verdict remains, jury must announce how many agreed

Appeals q Any PIP may appeal to the Chief Coroner against a coroner’s decision: § § § § § q whether or not to conduct an investigation not to conduct an autopsy to discontinue an investigation to resume or not a suspended investigation to request/allow a second autopsy to issue a Schedule 5 notice whethere should be a jury to exclude persons from an inquest as to findings at an inquest Most appeals will be dealt with on the papers but it still carries serious resource issues

Other provisions q Chief Coroner must be notified of cases taking more than a year q Rules 36 + 42 go into the primary legislation, as does rule 43 q Specific duty on local authority to secure the provision of staff and accommodation q Chief Coroner may make regulations about training q Greater power to request suspension of coroners investigation if someone ‘may be charged’

The Medical Examiner Scheme q Sheffield Pilot running for two years with 2000+ cases q Comparison is difficult, thus far only one big hospital without a public mortuary but. . . q Overall we have seen: § § § q a slight reduction in reported deaths, around the same number of autopsies a slight rise in inquests Conclusion: the pilot project shows this scheme to be of great benefit to bereaved, hospital and coroner alike