'It is a false economy to abolish the chief coroner'

---

The government cites 'current economic conditions' as the reason for abolishing the chief coroner. Alison Cox MBE, chief executive and founder of Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY), tells ePolitix.com why in the end abolition will cost more.

You are a charity that raises awareness of young sudden cardiac death and sudden death syndrome and offers specialist bereavement services following the sudden death of young people from undiagnosed heart conditions. What is your experience of the current coroners' system?

It is patchy. There are a considerable number of terrific coroners who go well beyond the call of duty in supporting bereaved families. These coroners become a legend with the family, who never forget how much they have been helped at the most terrible time of their lives. However, it is a postcode lottery. There are random districts that have poorly performing coroners who horribly exacerbate the grief of families by only giving them what is required by law – which is insufficient in regard to young sudden cardiac death. The dead cannot speak for themselves and the bereaved are often too distraught to do so.

The role of chief coroner was to oversee improvements in the inquest system – what problems do the families you support often encounter in the current system?

A coroner who only follows the line of duty as required within the current mandate is unlikely to refer the heart of the deceased person on for expert pathology. Consequently the bereaved family is not being given the chance to learn what their child/partner died from. As most sudden-death conditions of fit and healthy young (35 and under) people are genetic, not having the correct diagnosis of the cause of death means that other members of the family could be at risk of dying from the same condition. Not having expert cardiac pathology after a young sudden death could literally prove fatal to relatives of the person who has died.

Minister for justice, Jonathan Djanogly, has said the government does not believe that the new, additional funding the office of chief coroner would require is justifiable – how would you respond to this?

We believe that this is incorrect. The chief coroner would ensure judicial oversight; enforce national standards; increase accountability with an appeals system; ensure fewer unnecessary delays; and introduce transparency into the system. It would make the service fit for the 21st century. I do not see how they can justify NOT funding this role which could save further lives. What price can you put on that, particularly when the people saved are young and apparently fit and healthy?

The post of chief coroner was originally created to reduce the costs, both legal and administrative, of defective decision-making. Do you think that a failure to proceed with the appointment of a chief coroner is a false economy?

I passionately believe it is! Baroness Finlay of Llandaff's address to the Lords on December 12, 2010 challenged the costs the government has assessed for this position which is in excess of £10m. Her review indicated that the costs would be closer to £500,000. Experts believe that it will actually be more costly to try and make the alterations the government is suggesting, which is also likely to produce an inferior service.

The chief coroner was going to provide a new appeals process, how important would this process be for the families you support?

It was hoped that an ongoing development as part of the new appeals process would be to give an opportunity to those who had experience of the system to feed back their comments on their experience. This feedback should include positive endorsement as well as any difficulties. Their appraisal would be extremely valuable for the ongoing process of upgrading the service to meet not only the needs of the state but also the needs of those families that are trying to cope with their tragedy.

The House of Lords removed the abolition of the role of chief coroner from the Public Bodies Bill – do you think it is possible this will not be re-instated when the bill makes its way through the House of Commons?

We are campaigning for the importance of the role of chief coroner to be recognised, and have a petition we are delivering to No10 on March 3. Please visit http://www.c-r-y.org.uk/coronersbillcampaign.htm to find out more and sign our petition.

The government says the weaknesses in the system can be addressed without the role of chief coroner being introduced – do you think this is possible?

No, I do not. Expert opinion suggests it will be a significantly diminished service and there will be no financial advantage gained. Previous reports to government dating from 1908 have consistently highlighted the need for change. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which aimed to deliver more effective and responsive justice and coroners services for victims, took over eight years, occupying most of the last decade to achieve cross-party support and pass through the House of Commons. I think the Bereavement Charter which sets out guidance for bereaved people, including their rights and roles, during coroner investigations and inquests will be at risk without a chief coroner to give the service the national leadership it deserves. I do not think it is widely understood how important the coroners' service really is. Establishing the role of chief coroner was a crucial part of the Act, which is rendered hollow without it.

Article Comments