Uproar at plan to hold inquests in secret

#2
They already do this... It'd just make it legal
 
#3
The MOD says in response to this story that
"Friendly fire" and military inquests
The Times features an article suggesting that justice could be denied in "friendly fire" military inquests because juries might not be involved, under new measures in the Counter Terrorism Bill.

There has never been a legal requirement for juries to be involved in military inquests on overseas operational deaths of UK Service Personnel. In such cases, coroners have the discretion to decide whether to involve juries, but to date none has opted to do so. It is therefore wrong to suggest that not involving a jury in future inquests on "friendly-fire" military casualties would prevent full or open military inquests.
However, the Times headline is "Uproar at plan to hold inquests in secret" - not about juries. The MOD is of course quite right in saying that juries have not typically been involved in armed forces-related inquests, but it seems that on this occasion the Times coverage has been more accurate than the MOD's refutation.

The main Times article is about inquests in general, not only those into the death of forces personnel, and has a companion piece by their Defence Correspondent Michael Evans which is all about secrecy of inquests, and doesnt mention juries at all: How ministers failed to gag coroners over forces

BAFF: armed forces related inquests
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
To force a Coroner to hold an inquest in secret is about as contrary to English law as I can think of, but that hasnt stopped the Govt messing about with fundamental principles.

Coroners can and do withhold some information, mainly to protect the bereaved from distress, but to hold the whole court in camera is unknown as far as I can tell. Juries are part of the decision making process but not always required in Coroner's courts.
 

Similar threads

Top