header-logo header-logo

Time to reform public inquiries, say JUSTICE

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll