27 June 2023
A sensible policy proposal to monitor the recommendations of coroners’ inquests
*
“How did this person die?”
In any organised society this is one of the most important and basic questions that can and should be asked.
Was it a death that could have been prevented?
Are there things that can be done so that similar deaths can be avoided?
These questions are not just about the immediate, medical cause of death – but the wider circumstances which led to a person dying.
“How did this person die?” is a question which the legal system can often only answer indirectly. A police investigation and a criminal trial can sometimes ascertain the circumstances of a death when there is potential criminal liability. A civil trial can sometimes ascertain the circumstances of a death when there is potential civil liability.
But not all preventable deaths or lethal system failures are matters for the criminal and civil courts. And the purpose of court proceedings is not directly to inquire into facts generally, but to allocate legal liability – which is not always the same thing. For example, criminal proceedings especially have very strict rules of evidence.
*
There therefore needs to be another way of inquiring in the circumstances of the death and drawing any lessons – distinct from and in addition to the criminal and civil courts.
A way where the focus is not on the rights and liabilities of persons, but on simply finding out what happened and what that tells us.
And there is such another way.
In England there is the ancient office of the coroner.
Coroners have long provided the public good of conducting inquests into the circumstances of deaths – and coroners can make recommendations that may prevent further deaths and avoid similar lethal system failures.
It is difficult to think of anything that serves a more fundamental public interest.
*
But.
There is little wider point in coroners conducting their inquiries and making recommendations if nothing comes of the lessons that have been identified.
And this is a serious problem about our coronial system.
Here is a worked example provided by Inquest, the charity that provides expertise on state related deaths and their investigation:
And here is another case study:
As Inquest say at the end of that case study:
“…there is no central body dedicated to collating and analysing the Government’s follow-up to these recommendations to encourage positive action to prevent further deaths. Instead, it falls to families, lawyers, charities and coroners to join the dots.”
*
In essence, the lack of any body (and, indeed, anybody) being responsible for monitoring what happens to coroners’ recommendations robs the coronial system of any wider efficacy.
A public good may be being served by individual inquests into particular deaths, but this public good is not being converted into a wider social benefit.
That there is even this gap is extraordinary.
Other public entities have, in turn, their monitors – for example, the inspectorates of the police and of prisons.
There are many bodies that answer Alan Moore’s question of who watches the watchmen (or, as Juvenal once put it, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?).
Given the fundamental public interest in avoiding preventable deaths and lethal system failures, it would seem to be a no-brainer of a public policy proposal.
*
Inquest are today launching a campaign for such a body:
Inquest have also published this persuasive guide – from which the above case studies are taken.
Though the proposed name of a “national oversight mechanism” is a bit cumbersome – I would suggest OffQuest – there can be no sensible doubt that it is required as a thing.
And as we approach the next general election, it would seem straightforward for political parties to commit to such a body in their manifestoes.
It is a gap that should be filled and can be filled, and it is a proposal that can only have benefits.
For after all, the reason why “How did this person die?” is such an important question is that the answer can often help those who are still alive.
***
Over at his Substack, Joshua Rozenberg has written a good post on this topic.
***
This has been cross-posted from my Empty City substack.
***
Photo credit: wikimedia commons.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.
More on the comments policy is here.