Uproar at plan to hold inquests in secret

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by old_scopie, Aug 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Haven't seen this posted anywhere else:

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4510259.ece

    It has the potential to allow the Gov't to cover-up anything embarassing.

    "It could be applied to inquests... into the deaths of... “friendly-fire” military casualties..."

    Just hope the HoL kick it out when it comes up, otherwise this lot will abuse it.
     
  2. They already do this... It'd just make it legal
     
  3. The MOD says in response to this story that
    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
     
  4. mercurydancer

    mercurydancer LE Book Reviewer

    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.