header-logo header-logo

02 September 2020
Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Time to reform public inquiries, say JUSTICE

Inquests and inquiries into catastrophic events are beset with costly delay and duplication, pay insufficient heed to the requirements of those affected and often leave bereaved people and survivors feeling ‘confused, betrayed and re-traumatised’

That’s the conclusion of a major report by a working party of legal rights group JUSTICE, ‘When things go wrong: the response of the justice system’, published last week. It looks at the erosion of public confidence in the justice system’s response to major incidents causing multiple fatalities and makes 54 recommendations for change.

JUSTICE’s director, Andrea Coomber said: ‘Our work began before the pandemic, but the current coronavirus crisis reinforces the importance and timeliness of this project.’

One flaw that the 130-page report highlights is the lack of formal implementation and oversight following the end of an inquest or inquiry, which makes the likelihood of future prevention limited.

It proposes creating a Central Inquiries Unit within government, a full-time Chief Coroner and a special procedure inquest for investigating mass fatalities as well as single deaths linked by systemic failure. The special procedure inquest would have powers to consider closed material and make specific recommendations to prevent recurrence.

The working party, which spent a year on the report, calls in the report for greater collaborations between agencies, which would reduce the number of times that bereaved people and survivors are asked to recount traumatic events. It also wants a more structured process for appointing inquiry chairs and panels, setting terms of reference and providing information.

Chair of the working party, Sir Robert Owen, said: ‘A system cannot provide justice if its processes exacerbate the grief and trauma of its participants.

‘We think that this set of proposals, if implemented, will provide a cohesive and cost-effective system, with the prospect of a reduction in duplication and delay, and which in turn should serve to increase public trust.’

Issue: 7900 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Human rights , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
back-to-top-scroll