Policy #1071: "Ministers Can Intervene in Coroners' Inquests"
| Counter-Terrorism Bill — Disallow inquests without a jury in England and Wales — rejected - 10 Jun 2008 - Division No. 217 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the Counter-Terrorism Bill. The amendment would have deleted clause 65 from the Bill which enables the Secretary of State to order a coroner's inquest to take place without a jury. However, it was defeated. This vote applied only to England and Wales. A separate clause in the bill dealt with Northern Ireland, the position there was unaffected by this vote. The main aims of the Counter-Terrorism Bill were to[2]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Counter Terrorism Bill — Lord Chief Justice to appoint "special coroners" — rejected - 10 Jun 2008 - Division No. 218 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the Counter-Terrorism Bill. This was a proposal that the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales or the nominated senior judge, rather than the Secretary of State, should appoint "special coroners". However, it was defeated. The Counter-Terrorism Bill under discussion contained a provision for "special coroners" to be appointed to run inquests where the secretary of state had decided that a jury would not be used. The proposal that a member of the judiciary ought make the appointment was put forward by Cambridge MP David Howarth who spoke[2] in the debate on the matter. The fact this vote raises question of separation of political and judicial authority in this country was also made during the debate.[3] The main aims of the Counter-Terrorism Bill were to[4]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Coroners and Justice Bill — Condemn the Coroners and Justice Bill — rejected - 26 Jan 2009 - Division No. 21 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority of MPs voted against the motion to condemn the Coroners and Justice Bill. The motion, which was rejected, said:[1]
No Conservative MP voted on this motion. Although the government has not been forced to point to specific examples of past inquests which it would have chosen to hold in private without a jury had it had the power, the best candidate of such an inquest is the case of Lance Corporal Matty Hull killed by U.S. "friendly fire"[3] where the government could have certified the case under Clause 11(2)(a)(ii): "in order to protect the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country", since there is no limitation as to how little the relationship with the other country is harmed. The other extremely contentious issue[4] is the provision found in Clause 152 which would allow a ministers to order the over-riding of the Data Protection Act to "secure a relevant policy objective".[5] The main provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill were to[6]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Coroners and Justice Bill — Enable Minister to Replace Inquest With Inquiry — Incercept Evidence in Inquests - 9 Nov 2009 - Division No. 241 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority of MPs voted to allow the Lord Chancellor (a minister) to suspend an inquest and replace it with an inquiry and to allow the use of intercepted communications evidence in inquests. The majority of MPs voted against:
Amendment (a) stated[1]:
The paragraph 3 in question[2] was titled Suspension pending inquiry under Inquiries Act 2005. The paragraph required, subject to conditions, that "a senior coroner must suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a person’s death if the Lord Chancellor requests the coroner to do so on the ground that the cause of death is likely to be adequately investigated by an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 (c. 12) that is being or is to be held." Lords amendments 1,2, and 216 which were rejected by in this vote were on a different subject, that of the use of intercepted communications in inquests. Rejected amendment 1[3] sought to permit communications intercepts under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in order to obtain information required by an inquest. Rejected amendment 2[3] provided for the allowing the disclosure of intercepted material to a judge carrying out an inquest, the counsel to an inquest, an inquest jury and interested parties at an inquest. Rejected amendment 216[4] provided for intercept evidence to only be used in relation to ongoing, or future investigations and not those which had concluded at the time the provisions came into force. Due to a procedural farce Minister Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 1, 2 and 216 but then went on to vote against it. The standing orders of the House of Commons and the procedural motion passed to determine the timetable for handling the bill meant that the opposition were unable to table the motion. It was later claimed that this slim majority of only eight votes was in-fact slimmer than it appeared due to a number of Labour MPs voted the wrong way by mistake[5]. Denis MacShane has said he felt he voted the wrong way on this vote[6]. The main provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill were to[7]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Coroners and Justice Bill — Remove powers of Lord Chancellor to Suspend a Coroner's Inquest — rejected - 11 Nov 2009 - Division No. 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority Not-Contents rejected an amendment[1] to the Coroners and Justice Bill. This amendment would have removed the powers given to the Lord Chancellor (a government minister), under this Bill, to suspend a coroner's inquest. However, it was defeated. The main provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill were to[2]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Coroners and Justice Bill — Schedule 1 — Explicit Approval of Lord Chief Justice Required for Minister to Suspend Coroner's Inquiry -rejected - 12 Nov 2009 - Division No. 248 | |||||||||||||||||||
| The majority No voters rejected an amendment[1] to the Coroners and Justice Bill. The amendment would have required the explicit approval of the head of the judiciary before a government minister could suspend an inquest and replace it with an inquiry[2]. The Lord Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary. The relevant government minister is the Lord Chancellor, currently Jack Straw MP, the Minister for Justice. Jack Straw claimed that the proposed addition was legislating unnecessarily as it followed that if the Lord Chief Justice had appointed a judge then he approved the request to suspend the coroner's investigation. He described the situation prior to the proposed addition as already being: "as clear as a pikestaff"[3]. If one accepts the Minister's argument then this was not a vote on the question of if a Minister ought be given the power to suspend an inquest. Those disagreeing saw the additional condition as a necessary "additional safeguard and reassurance".[4] The main provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill were to[5]:
----
|
||||||||||||||||||