Ministers defend plans for coroners' system

The government has defended its proposals for reforming the coroners system following criticism from MPs.

The justice committee recently raised concerns over plans, contained in the Counter-Terrorism Bill, to enable the secretary of state "to certify that a coroner's inquest may be held without a jury".

It was also critical of plans to appoint a special "security-cleared coroner in inquests which are expected to involve the consideration of material that should not be made public".

Justice minister Bridget Prentice pointed out that current laws prevented coroners from using "very sensitive material which may have relevance, either directly or more generally, as to how someone met their death".

"This is the sort of material which, if it was known about publicly, could damage national security and endanger lives, either in the present or the future," she said.

She insisted that the government "has no intention of interfering with the judicial independence of coroners".

"You also question the exclusion of a jury from an inquest involving non-disclosable material under our proposals in the Bill," she said.

"The solution we have proposed would replace the jury with a coroner as the finder of fact, as already happens in 98 per cent of coroners' inquests.

"The specially appointed coroners would be security cleared to the appropriate level in anticipation of these types of cases arising.

"Since they are independent judicial officers, we believe that it is right for them to have access to, and be able to reach conclusions based on, all relevant material. The proposals will affect a very limited number of cases in exceptional circumstances."

The Counter-Terrorism Bill has passed third reading in the House of Commons and is now awaiting consideration in the House of Lords.

And committee chairman Alan Beith said there were "still several key issues" which peers needed to address.

"For example, it needs to be absolutely clear that the government cannot itself choose the coroner when a security cleared coroner is required: and there remain unresolved issues about whether the coroner could see sensitive material which had been used at the inquest if a coroner's verdict is subject to judicial review," he added.

"It still seems unnecessary and unhelpful to proceed with these clauses in advance of the Coroner's Bill and the outcome of the implementation process on the use of intercept evidence, especially when I note that the government are considering a 'sunset clause' to guarantee that their proposals will be aligned with the results of these two processes."