Discolouring Democracy? Policing, Sensitive Evidence, and Contentious Deaths in the United Kingdom

Abstract

This article examines recent United Kingdom government proposals for secret inquests, which, it is argued, are part of a general push for secrecy discernible across common law jurisdictions, and which include developments such as increased recourse to sensitive evidence in forensic settings and the normalization of intelligence‐led policing. While the push for secrecy is justified by national security claims, the article shows that in cases of contentious death involving police, the issue is less about national security and more about the use of intercept evidence, covert surveillance, and intelligence‐led policing, all of which have implications for police trust, accountability, and reputation management.

Exploring fatal facts: current issues in coronial law, policy and practice

“…Despite this, the coroner's jurisdiction was staunchly defended when, in 2008, the UK government proposed introducing what have become colloquially known as ‘secret inquests’ – i.e. closed, juryless inquests with government-vetted coroners and counsel – into deaths where the inquest would involve sensitive material, including material that should not be made public in the interests of national security (see Scott Bray, 2012; Martin and Scott Bray, 2013). Announced in the context of counter-terrorism with the Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 (UK), the secret inquest clauses ushered in a three-year period in which successive UK governments repeatedly sought to pass legislation that prescribed holding closed inquests.…”

“…The Counter-Terrorism Bill 2008 (UK) was followed by secret inquest proposals in both the Coroners and Justice Bill 2009 (UK), and the 2011 Justice and Security Green Paper. All inquest reform proposals were met with considerable controversy, raising cross-party concerns about the role of the executive, human rights, public scrutiny of deaths involving state agents, and the fundamental principle of open justice; concerns echoed by key advocacy groups, such as INQUEST and LIBERTY (see Scott Bray, 2012; Martin and Scott Bray, 2013).…”

Secrecy’s Corrupting Influence on Democratic Principles and the Rule of Law

“…(Ewing and Tham 2008: 692) More recently, the Justice and Security Act 2013 (UK) has been regarded by many as representing a significant challenge to the (unwritten) British constitution, civil liberties, and due process rights, including rights to minimum disclosure in closed proceedings (Martin 2014a;Martin and Scott Bray 2013;Martin, Scott Bray and Kumar 2015 Conversely, a US federal judge recently ruled that, although the First Amendment does not protect the right to take photos or record videos of police, it would protect the right if filming is done in the spirit of protest (Mock 2016). This is a decision that is in line with prior proposals in California to protect citizens who record or photograph police actions, without obstructing them from performing their duties, 6 but out of step with later plans in Arizona to make it illegal to shoot close-up videos of police on the basis it would put officers in danger by distracting them while engaging with suspects.…”

Taken lives matter: open justice and recognition in inquests into deaths at the hands of the state

“…4See, in particular, Scott Bray (2013), Scott Bray and Martin (2012) and Martin and Scott Bray (2013); and practitioner guides such as Thomas et al . (2014) and Dorries (2014).…”