An Opportunity to Be Heard: Family Experiences of Coronial Investigations Into Missing People and Views on Best Practice

Abstract

Experiences of 15 family members and friends of missing people of a coronial investigation into the suspected death of a missing person in New South Wales (NSW), Australia were examined via in-depth interviews. This study explored participant perceptions of the impact of coronial proceedings on well-being, and views on best practice approaches to families in the Coroner’s Court. Transcripts were thematically analysed, yielding six key themes in participant experiences of inquests: (1) Opportunity to be heard, (2) A chance for education, (3) If you are human with me (sensitive treatment and language), (4) Timely investigations, (5) A public and formal court environment, and (6) Coronial outcomes. Overall, families benefitted from opportunities to have input and feel heard, compassionate treatment, and appropriate education about the process and available support services. A detriment on well-being was described when these factors were precluded. Some participants perceived positive outcomes arising from public awareness of cases of missing people, formalities that conveyed respect, and timeframes that enabled further investigation or preparation for the inquest. Others reported distress and trauma in response to significant delays that led to a loss of evidence, intrusive media and unknown persons in court, and unwelcoming, formal court environments. Some participants were profoundly distressed by a finding of death and by the procedures that followed the inquest, emphasising the need for post-inquest debriefing and ongoing support. These findings deepen our understanding of coronial practices, and of measures to prevent harm, that will be instructive to other coronial jurisdictions. Further research should examine family experiences in contexts where there are variable coronial proceedings or procedures that result in legal findings of death.

How well do Regulation 28 reports serve future public health and safety?

“…If, in fact, the Reg.28 report system has considerable scope for improvement (as these data suggest), then a public perception of the inadequacy of any system to help prevent '..it happening to somebody else' will undermine support for the coronial system in general, and forego the 'chance for education'. 14 The Reg.28 report system could obviously benefit from some sort of nationally consistent rule on when a report should be written; if that was to prove impossible, then perhaps some variant, not necessarily demanding remedial action by a named addressee, should issue after every inquest. A national archive, open to the public could then form a useful basis for the mitigation of risk (ironically, this was the case from the 13 th to mid-17 th century, until abolished by law).…”

“…28 report system has considerable scope for improvement (as these data suggest), then a public perception of the inadequacy of any system to help prevent ‘it happening to somebody else’ will undermine support for the coronial system in general, and forego the ‘chance for education’. 15…”

Dreading Yet Hoping: Traumatic Loss Impacted by Reference DNA Sample Collection for Families of Missing People

“…Likewise, much of the previous literature on the lived experience of families of missing people refers to closure as not being possible for families of missing people given the inherent ambiguity of cases. Melnick and Roos ( 33 ) argue that closure has been a common feature of the social discourse surrounding response to loss where, however in the case of ambiguous loss, adjustment to life post-loss is not dependent on completing elements of grief reactions where closure may typically inhabit. When a disappearance occurs, each piece of information about the whereabouts of a person who is lost adds to iterative moments that lead to potential answers.…”

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life‐changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence

“…Fifty‐three studies (represented by 61 articles) were eligible for inclusion in this review (see Figure 1). 18–78 …”

“…Fifty‐three studies (represented by 61 articles) were eligible for inclusion in this review (see Figure 1 ). 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ,…”