An inquest is conducted following any violent or unnatural death with a view to establishing the cause, time and place of death and if necessary establishing the identity of the deceased. Lawyers don’t generally attend unless interested parties want to be represented, and for the average trial lawyer its an easy day: the tribunal being uniquely (in English law) inquisitorial. So no cross examining and no apportioning blame is permitted, although that never stops some lawyers trying.
June 12th saw the long awaited publication of the Coroners Bill, a reaction to failings identified in the Shipman enquiry. The Bill will allow families to challenge coroners verdicts, and provide for the full time appointment of a Chief Coroner and a Chief Medical adviser. Coroners will be employed full time and will be legally qualified.
Doctors will be employed full time as forensic medical examiners with a view to improving detection of unnatural deaths.
Ruthie wonders whether the changes will do anything to prevent another Shipman incident, but since the coroners system has existed in its present form for the past 800 years, an overhaul is probably in order. And we shouldn’t complain, since the Bill will create jobs for doctors and lawyers many of whom are now unemployed due to recent NHS and legal aid cuts.
The most curious aspect of the Bill is inclusion for the first time of a plain English commentary. Now if law were that easy to understand why employ lawyers? But Ruthie also speculates on the legal status of this commentary. When interpreting are we required not only to consider Hansard and Pepper and Hart, but the commentary as well?
Given the standard of the drafting on much of the recent criminal legislation, it would not surprise Ruthie if the commentary and the legislation conflicted. Now how does that make life easier for the layperson? Ah well, just have to employ another lawyer to explain the interpretation…
No comments yet.