Introduction:Frontiers in Coronial Justice– ushering in a new era of coronial research

Abstract

This Special Issue, Frontiers in Coronial Justice, reflects on the future of death investigation studies in the coronial context. Where the uptake of the death studies movement in the social sciences more broadly has expanded the interdisciplinary study of death, comparatively little attention has focused on the work of coroners or their death investigation practices. Important, but albeit ad hoc, contributions from the disciplines of medicine, law, public health and criminology, highlight both the possibilities for coronial scholarship and how coronial studies continue to percolate at disciplinary margins. And yet, there is growing social attention to death generally, from death cafés to death salons, and the 'positive death movement' more broadly. Society is clustering around conversations seeking social change in facing death, including preparatory discussions around end of life wishes and options. Yet, by their very nature, unexpected, sudden or violent deaths -those that fall under the jurisdiction of the coroner -constitute a distinct category of death; one that is, in many ways, incapable of being prepared for. Nevertheless, such deaths present instances of considerable medical, legal and social industry, with attendant issues around autopsy and inquests, for example. This industry is also changing, as coronial law and policy reform across international jurisdictions has refined, clarified and sought to evolve the coronial role. Together, these developments evidence why coronial law and practice deserve sustained attention. Correspondingly, a theme that unites the papers in this special issue is a greater appreciation of the principles and practices of coronial death investigation. It is intended that, by showcasing work that cuts across law, socio-legal studies, criminology and history, this Special Issue will contribute to delivering new frontiers in coronial research.At a snapshot, the genres of scholarly attention to the coronial jurisdiction are wide and varied. Coroners' work has intermittently piqued the attention of socio-legal scholars (e.g. Wells, 1991Wells, , 1996Sampson, 2003;Pemberton, 2008; Corrin and Douglas, 2008), and legal scholars have canvassed specific issues, such as human rights, in the context of coronial work and litigation (Hunyor, 2008(Hunyor, , 2009O'Brien, 2009;Ismail, 2010;Hyam, 2010;Chevalier-Watts, 2010;McIntosh, 2012;Freckelton and McGregor, 2014), including literature that touches upon deaths in certain contexts, such as Northern Ireland (e.g. Bell and Keenan, 2005). Save few exceptions, criminological scholarship is found largely wanting on any wholesale attention to theorising death investigation. As a research focus, coronial work has been addressed through methodological questions, such as the value of using coronial data (e.g. Pelfry and White Covington, 2007), or where coronial processes and documents (coronial findings, inquest proceedings and transcripts) form the basis for case-study research (e.g. Cunneen, 2006;Prenzler, 2010;Porter, 2013). Until recently, case-...

Killing with No Punishment: Police Violence and Judicial (In)justice

“…As a consequence, rather than guiding the jury to guess what the police constable was thinking in that altercation, an objective examination of the "absolute necessity" requirement is needed so as to be loyal to ECHR Article 2. The court should approach the case differently -by differentiating state liability from individual liability in order to avoid the inquisitorial proceeding from becoming an adversarial one (Mavronicola, 2017;Scott Bray & Martin, 2016).…”

“…In other words, members of the public expect state agents and other parties involved to be held accountable for their actions by going through this judicial process (Baker, 2016a(Baker, , 2016bScott Bray & Martin, 2016;Urpeth, 2010). Although the coroner's court is different from other courts where adversarial trials take place, it provides a venue to disclose documents related to the death and make witnesses available for the inquest, as required by the ECHR (Matthews, 2007).…”