
Inquest and
Politicians from across the political spectrum heard that despite last minute amendments, the Government’s proposals would gravely limit transparency and increase executive control over the inquest process and could exclude bereaved families, their legal representatives and the public at large from the investigation process. This could include inquests into highly contentious deaths such as deaths in custody or deaths of individuals where issues of the state’s broader conduct are raised for example an inquest into the death of a soldier killed in
Susan Alexander said:
"The secret inquest provisions in the Bill are not significantly different from the clauses that the Government withdrew last year from the Counter-Terrorism Bill, at least from my point of view. They could still prevent a jury and me from seeing key evidence and having it properly tested in Court.
The inquest into Azelle’s death will not undermine the work of the police in protecting the public from serious crime, but the public interest will be badly damaged if the truth of what happened is obscured and all the lessons of this case cannot be learned.”
Helen Shaw, Co-
"INQUEST remains fundamentally opposed to these proposals. They amount to a fundamental attack on the independence and transparency of the coronial system in
“What happened to all that rhetoric about rebalancing justice in favour of victims? This flawed policy forgets that the only point of an inquest is providing answers for bereaved families and the wider public. It is perfectly possible to protect sensitive material within an open jury system. Everything else is just politics.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Life's too short. Get angry about something today!!!