Inquests to be even more secret than we thought

The government’s plans to authorise secret inquests, with press, public and relatives excluded, have come in for increasing criticism since I wrote about them here a few hours after the Coroners and Justice Bill was published.

In a briefing to MPs ahead of the Second Reading debate on Monday, the Bar Council says it should be for the judge appointed to conduct a certified inquest — and not the Secretary of State — to decide whether to hold all or part of it in private. That was my view too.

But I have now noticed a proposal that would allow all inquests to be held under a blanket of secrecy — not just those certified by a minster under the admittedly wide powers proposed in clause 11.

Let’s start with a Government paper called Sensitive reporting in coroners' courts — response to comments

This claims that, after extensive consultation, the Government has abandoned earlier plans to allow coroners to prevent publication of the deceased’s name.

“There will be no general provision on reporting restrictions in the coroners’ legislation,” it says.

“The legislation will, however, contain a narrow provision to protect the families of UK special forces deceased servicemen and women.”

This, says the Government, “repays the undertaking of confidentiality which these soldiers, and their families, give.”

Fair enough, one might say. And “families will, however, have the right to waive their anonymity if they wish”.

So where do we find this “narrow provision” in the Bill? It must be clause 34(2)(e). We can see that from the explanatory notes, paragraph 287.

They say: “Subsection (2)(e) would allow the senior coroner to direct that a person’s name should not be disclosed except to persons specified in the direction. It is intended that any provision made in rules will provide for this discretion to be used sparingly, for example during inquests into the deaths of UK special forces personnel or other investigations where witnesses need to remain anonymous to protect their safety.”

So it’s not just the special forces. That’s just an example. It’s any witnesses who “need to remain anonymous to protect their safety”. And where is the power to waive anonymity? And why all this woolly language about what “it’s intended” the rules will say?

Now let’s look at clause 34(2)(e) itself.

“Coroners rules may make ... provision for a senior coroner to have power to give a direction, in proceedings at an inquest, allowing or requiring a name or other matter not to be disclosed except to persons specified in the direction.”

No mention of special forces. No mention of witnesses who need to remain anonymous to protect their safety. The power is not even restricted to names. It would allow a rule banning disclosure of any “name or other matter”. And that, of course, could include the name of the deceased — which is exactly what the Government promised we would be able to report.

If ministers really intend this rule to be confined to special forces, they should say so on the face of the Bill. Otherwise, nobody will believe them.

Posted at January 24, 2009 12:15 AM