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

Abstract

Death investigation and coronial practices have undergone significant social, political and legal scrutiny in recent years. A wave of coronial reform has occurred across jurisdictions, including in the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with a concomitant focus on the adequacy of death investigation law and policy. Taking key coronial developments in the UK and Australia as its starting point, this paper explores a legal jurisdiction undergoing immense legal and policy reform to illustrate why coronial law and practice is of increasing scholarly interest. It begins by tracing the contentious landscape of UK coronial law reform, which has also resonated internationally, thereafter examining key controversies that refocused attention on the value of the jurisdiction, before discussing contemporary coronial issues including, publicity, human rights and death prevention.

Bereaved Family ‘Involvement’ in (Prisoner) Death Investigations: Whose ‘Satisfaction’?

“…Bereaved families’ experiences of death investigations deserve sustained analysis, as “ultimately those who are left to embrace the inquest's benefits, or bear its failings, are the bereaved” (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016: p. 136). Globally, S.10 of the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death: United Nations Manual (OHCHR, 2016) highlights that bereaved relatives “have the right to equal and effective access to justice […] and to have access to relevant information concerning the violations and relevant accountability mechanisms”.…”

“…The adequacy of death investigation law and policy has been questioned internationally (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). Many (former) British Commonwealth states utilise Coronial inquests to investigate unnatural deaths (Spillane et al, 2019; Evans, 2021).…”

“…Many (former) British Commonwealth states utilise Coronial inquests to investigate unnatural deaths (Spillane et al, 2019; Evans, 2021). Coronial reforms have recently been seen in jurisdictions including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Newhouse et al, 2020; Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). In the UK, Coronial reforms were stimulated by human tissue retention controversies from the late 1990s; the failure to detect Dr Harold Shipman's serial killings from the 1970s until the late 1990s due to flawed death certification processes; the provisions of Article 2, which has had a “dramatic effect on inquest law” (Kirton-Darling, 2016: p12); and the 2012 High Court quashing of the original inquest verdicts into the 96 deaths at the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016).…”

“…Coronial reforms have recently been seen in jurisdictions including the UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand (Newhouse et al, 2020; Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). In the UK, Coronial reforms were stimulated by human tissue retention controversies from the late 1990s; the failure to detect Dr Harold Shipman's serial killings from the 1970s until the late 1990s due to flawed death certification processes; the provisions of Article 2, which has had a “dramatic effect on inquest law” (Kirton-Darling, 2016: p12); and the 2012 High Court quashing of the original inquest verdicts into the 96 deaths at the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). All of these issues stimulated the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 , which highlighted that bereaved families require better recognition, designated families as interested persons at inquests with provisions including: being informed of post-mortem(s) and hearings; disclosure of statements and reports; and to attend and question witnesses at hearings (Ministry of Justice, 2020).…”

“…For example, the Victoria Coroners Act 2008 S.8 acknowledges that protracted proceedings can be countertherapeutic and recognises families in terms of access to information and respect for religious and cultural beliefs. Regarding autopsies, the Queensland Coroners Act 2003 S.19 requires that, where practicable, Coroners must consider distress for families regarding an order for and the extent of internal examination of the body (Scott Bray and Martin, 2016). However, families have long acted to shape death investigations and institutional responses (Pievsky, 2005; Hay, 2019; Scraton, 2016), and family participation has often been fought for, rather than simply bestowed by legislators (Tomczak, 2021).…”