Ministers will order judges to exclude reporters from inquests

The Home Secretary will be able to order High Court judges to exclude the press and public from a breathtakingly wide range of inquests under proposals published today.

Clause 11(2) of the Coroners and Justice Bill would allow a Secretary of State to “certify” an investigation if of the opinion that it should not be made public “in order to protect the interests of ... preventing or detecting crime”.

Although the power is subject to judicial review, it would cover almost any inquest. Most unnatural deaths result from actions that could involve crimes.

Once an inquest has been certified in this way, the coroner is to be excluded and the death is to be investigated by a High Court judge. If the judge decides to hold an inquest, clause 11(6) says that he or she must sit without a jury.

The Bill would allow the Home Secretary to certify an investigation even if a jury has already begun hearing the evidence. That jury would then be discharged.

Clause 11 says nothing about excluding the press and public. For that, we must turn to clause 34. This allows rules to be made regulating procedures at inquests.

Clause 34(4) says: “Coroners rules may make provision requiring a person holding an inquest that has to be held without a jury because of section 11(6) to give a direction excluding persons, except those of a prescribed description, from all or part of the inquest.”

That “person holding an inquest that has to be held without a jury because of section 11(6)” is a High Court judge. The judge may therefore be required to exclude everyone — except those specified in the rules — from the inquest.

Those rules will not be published before the Bill is enacted. But we can be confident that they will not include press and public among those entitled to attend such inquests. They may not include relatives — or even the relatives’ lawyers.

Note carefully the word “require”. The High Court judge will have no discretion. If he or she lets a trusted reporter in, it is the judge who will be breaking the law.

Surely, the whole point of appointing someone as senior as a High Court judge is to ensure that the right answers are given to difficult questions. Don’t we trust High Court judges to decide whether it is safe to hold an inquest in public? Not if we are the Government, it seems.

Posted at January 14, 2009 06:58 PM