header-logo header-logo

14 November 2025 / Harry Lambert
Issue: 8139 / Categories: Features , Profession , Technology , Inquests , Coronial law , Health
printer mail-detail

Neurotechnology & the law: inquests

235670
As neurotechnology increasingly embeds itself in everyday life, the coroner’s court faces a new frontier—where neural data could illuminate the mysteries of death with scientific precision & profound ethical consequences. Harry Lambert reports
  • Advances in neurotechnology could soon allow coroners to analyse brain activity to determine intent, cause, and sequence of death—redefining how inquests are conducted.
  • From discerning suicidal intent and distinguishing drug-induced deaths to resolving questions like cause versus consequence or identifying SIDS, neural insights may offer unprecedented clarity in coronial investigations.

The growing ubiquity of wearable technology and the rapidly advancing field of neurotechnology are generating an unprecedented flood of neural data, which could have profound implications for coronial law. In 2023, Apple filed patents that incorporate electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors into its AirPods, while just over a month ago, Meta launched its first mass-market neuro-wearable, the Neural Band. These developments signal a future where neural monitoring becomes seamlessly and casually integrated into our daily lives. And perhaps into our deaths as well: neurotechnology’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll