HC Deb 09 July 1981 vol 8 cc569-71
8. Mr. Meacher

Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to change the functions of coroners' courts.

Mr. Raison

We have reviewed the coroners' system in the light of public concern about one or two recent inquests. As I said on 1 June in reply to my hon. And learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), my right hon. Friend has already accepted certain recommendations of the Brodrick committee relating to deaths in custody and the selection of coroners' juries. He does not, however, consider that at the present time any further changes are necessary.

Mr. Meacher

Does the Minister accept that coroners are not the right persons to conduct inquiries into killings or deaths with a high degree of political sensitivity? Relevant evidence, including police investigators' reports, is normally withheld, in many recent cases coroners have clearly been biased and verdicts of misadventure are treated as acquittals, as though there had been a trial when in fact there has not. Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that the most serious cases are heard in the High Court or before an impartial police ombudsman?

Mr. Raison

I am aware that in one or two recent cases the view has been expressed that the inquest was an unsuitable vehicle, but we must bear in mind that it has a limited function, which is to ascertain the cause of death. It is not its function to attribute blame. There are other methods of inquiry available, including criminal proceedings. It is open to anyone who believes that he is aggrieved by an inquest verdict to appeal to the High Court by or with the authority of the Attorney-General, under the provisions of section 6 of the Coroners Act 1887, for the inquest verdict to be set aside and a fresh inquest ordered.

Mr. Lawrence

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are some Conservative Members who will be disappointed with his answer to the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)? Does he appreciate that there is a considerable amount of concern about the function of coroners' courts? It is not enough to say that some of the recommendations of the Brodrick committee have been implemented, because nearly all of them have not been implemented. The report of the Brodrick committee is now nearly 10 years old. Will my hon. Friend consider taking rather more drastic action than he is proposing to take?

Mr. Raison

I believe that the concern that has been expressed has been about one or two cases only. They represent only a minute fraction of the deaths investigated by coroners and the number of inquests held in a year.

Mr. Christopher Price

Is the Minister aware that if, like me, he had attended the inquest on the New Cross fire he would agree that that inquest did enormous damage to the processes of justice and to race relations? Is he further aware that where serious allegations are being made against the police it is inappropriate that a coroner should preside? Coroners rely heavily upon the police and Co not have the sort of experience that a High Court judge might have, as Lord Scarman is now exhibiting, of conducting proceedings even-handedly? Does he accept that it is more appropriate in those cases that the Home Secretary should have the power to bring in a judge instead of leaving the issues to coroners?

Mr. Raison

High Court judges already have the powers of coroners. Fundamental changes in the procedure of coroners' courts would be needed to enable judges to act as coroners. Legislation would be required to enable a judge to take over from a coroner who had already opened an inquest, which he usually does within a very short time of the death. I am not satisfied that such changes would be justified. The hon. Gentleman referred to the New Cross inquest. The coroner is an independent judicial officer and I have no authority to comment on the way in which he carries out the duties of his office within the framework of the law.

Mr. George Cunningham

Does the Minister accept that it is no reflection whatsoever on coroners in general or any particular coroner to suggest that there are some cases where they are not best suited to carry out a politically sensitive or a highly publicised case, and that the consideration that we want the Government to consider is whether one can keep the inquest system but allow the Secretary of State, in those suitable cases, to appoint a judge, perhaps not even a High Court judge, as against a coroner to do exactly the same job that otherwise would be done by the coroner?

Mr. Raison

Apart from the general principle, there are a number of severe practical problems about following that course. One of those problems would be to decide in which cases the Home Secretary, or whoever it was, would come to such a decision.