The delay over the Coroner's Reform Bill is an opportunity not to be missed, as the proposed draft reforms do not go far enough, says Paul Rumley


We have been waiting for the draft Coroner's Reform Bill to come before Parliament for what seems like many years. Despite being mentioned in the pre-Queen's Speech of summer 2007, it has still not been included in the legislative timetable. So what is the current position?



It is understood from the Ministry of Justice that there is no space in the legislative programme until the 2008/2009 session at the earliest, and in the meantime we can expect the following:



- An updated charter for the bereaved;

- An effort to ensure that the Press Complaints Commission's code is applied effectively in the reporting of coroner's inquests;

- A strengthening of the coroner's powers to make reports to prevent future deaths.



On the final issue, a discussion paper was issued by the coroner's unit of the Ministry of Justice in January 2008, with proposed amendments to rule 43 of the Coroner's Rules 1984, the response time for which was due to close on 7 March 2008. The discussion paper is apparently just that - an opportunity to obtain views upon proposed amendments, rather than a formal consultation exercise. The difference between the two is not readily apparent.



The discussion paper contains these proposed amendments:



- To give the coroner a wider remit to make reports to prevent future deaths;

- To impose a duty on the relevant person or organisation to respond to the report;

- To provide statutory authority for the coroner to share reports and responses to them with interested persons and any other person whom the coroner thinks would find it of interest;

- To disseminate lessons learned from individual cases more widely;

- To publish a regular summary of reports and responses;

- To promote the use of reports through coroner training and guidance.



While these are all commendable in theory, it is not clear how the new rule would be enforced. While there are time limits for responses to a coroner's report contained within the amendments, there is no mention of any specific sanctions for non-compliance. It is also not clear how robust the general effects of these reports and responses to them will be.



So where does that leave us in terms of what the future could hold if the whole issue of reform were to be revisited?



Representing families at inquests and conducting advocacy in the coroner's court does produce the utmost admiration for the work coroners and their officers do to try and provide answers to the families of the bereaved. However, the lack of consistency of approach to inquest hearings and evidence from the different districts cannot help but create the perception that we are making the best of a largely 19th century system with the current reform proposals rather than trying to create a modern, flexible, cost-effective system fit for the 21st century. It may well be that the current delay is in fact an opportunity to look again at more radical reform in this most personal and important area of law, which has the potential to touch us all in light of the indiscriminate nature of death.



As a starting point, the coroner's system needs to be brought firmly into the judicial system, under the control of the Ministry of Justice, with a central, ring-fenced budget. This would ensure clarity and certainty of rules of evidence and procedures, but without necessarily losing its invaluable investigative nature.



The most radical question is of course whether we need coroners at all. Surely a centralised medical law tribunal would provide a wider, modern forum for such issues, sitting wherever it is required not only to investigate causes of death but also with the ability to hear the more complex cases of medical law currently within the jurisdiction of the new Court of Protection. As society's medical needs, and the ethical questions surrounding them, become more complex, a specialist medical law tribunal could be invaluable and encompass many different aspects of the law relating to both life and death.



It is possible that there could be cost savings from such a new tribunal, as is being amply demonstrated by the inquest into the death of the late Princess Diana. With no disrespect to those involved in that investigation, it is clear that the current system of jury inquests is difficult and expensive to run. In any event, experience dictates that most coroners will look for any and every reason to try and avoid the difficulties and costs associated with a jury. A three- member tribunal panel would eliminate those difficulties, making for a broader and more efficient initial enquiry into deaths. Having a legally qualified chairman, a medical member and a lay member can only retain and enhance the qualities of the current system.



Other savings would arise from eliminating the current proposals for a chief and deputy chief coroner for England and Wales with their respective need for offices and staff. Being part of the overall tribunal system would ensure a direct right of appeal to the higher courts, as at present. A central budget would also reduce the costs of administering separate budgets in each local authority.



Such a reform would also form part of the necessary specialisation of the judiciary, which is slowly following the increasing specialisation of the profession as a whole. If the status, pay, pension and other conditions were equal to those of a circuit judge, as the position merits, such a tribunal would continue to attract and, indeed, possibly increase its attraction to judicial officers of the highest calibre.



In summary, the current 'holding proposals' and essentially piecemeal introduction of reform are insufficient. The government should look again at this area and scrutinise whether its draft reforms go far enough. In particular, a medical law tribunal to investigate deaths in the future could provide the following advantages:



- A modern system, firmly rooted in the judicial system, retaining breadth and depth of investigation;

- Consistency and efficiency of decision-making with clear rules of evidence and procedure;

- Possible costs savings with no need for a chief or deputy chief coroner, dispensing with juries and, consequently, shorter inquest hearings - protected with a ring-fenced budget.



The current delay in reform is an ideal opportunity to revisit this issue and should be seized upon at all costs.



Paul Rumley is a partner in the clinical negligence department at Withy King, and head of the firm's inquests unit