§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered revising the procedure of coroner's courts with a view to avoiding prejudice in the event of subsequent trials.
325§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, as soon as legislative opportunity affords, the Government intend to abolish the duty of a coroner's jury, if their verdict is murder or manslaughter, to name the person they find guilty of causing the death, and the coroner's consequential duty to commit that person for trial.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend what he means by "as soon as" the Government are prepared to bring in legislation? Is he aware that the Brodrick Committee on the whole matter of coroner's courts started 10 years ago, that it is already two years since the Report was issued, that the general public are very concerned about the results that can and do ensue in consequence of verdicts that are given in the coroner's courts, and that the Law Society years ago gave the opinion that some of the present provisions should be removed? Is it not time that some action was taken, and if the Government are not prepared to do it will they say that they will assist me or some other Member of this House in introducing a Private Member's Bill in order to deal with the situation?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I think I can say that the Government will not assist my noble friend in such an endeavour. It is difficult to say when legislation may be possible. An opportunity may occur in a general Bill, and the Government are considering that at the present moment. A careful study has been, and is being, made of the Brodrick Report and I hope that the Government may be in a position—I say that I hope, and I use the word "may"—to make a statement before the Recess.
§ Lord HALEMy Lords, can the noble Lord give a single example of any useful purpose that the existence of coroner's courts ROW serves?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, this is perhaps wide of the Question but, generally speaking, an inquest is not concerned with criminal liability. It has always been a duty of the coroner's court to deal with certain types of situation, and it could well be argued that there is a function for the coroner's court but not, perhaps, when it involves a criminal decision.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, would the Minister say whether, while this matter is being considered, the usefulness of coroner's courts at all will also be considered? It is an ancient procedure, but certainly I believe it now to be obsolete and it would be far better abolished completely.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the scope and function of the coroner's court is being considered along with the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Janner.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, can my noble friend at least deal with a situation in respect of which the Government have already declared themselves prepared to act, where prejudice arises in consequence of verdicts that are given? Take, for example, my Lords, a case at the present moment, the Lucan case—
Lord JANNER—and similar cases where magistrates' courts have refused to allow a case to go on after a verdict has been given in a coroner's court. Can he not do something about that?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, we are all aware of these examples, and, as my noble friend has pointed out, there has been a Committee under the chairmanship of Judge Brodrick considering these matters. That Committee has reported and the Government are now considering how best to deal with these matters. Although there has been some interval of time, if you are going to change something which has been going on for a good many years, you must be absolutely certain that the course of action you are recommending is the right one.