<<previous  |  index

Secret Inquests

Clause 77 (Part 6) gives the Home Secretary broad scope to declare an inquest closed to public scrutiny. Inquests subject to a security certificate “in the interests of national security, in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country, or otherwise in the public interest” would be held by a specially appointed coroner behind closed doors and without a jury. Human Rights Watch believes that secret inquests led by coroners appointed by the Home Secretary are incompatible with the UK’s obligations to protect the right to life under article 2 of the ECHR.

Under article 2, the UK has a positive obligation to conduct effective investigations of deaths resulting from the use of force. The European Court of Human Rights has established that to be effective, an investigation must be independent, take reasonable steps to collect the evidence necessary to reaching a determination, be carried out with promptness and reasonable expedition, and be subject to public scrutiny.²⁵ The Court recognizes that the degree of public scrutiny may vary from case to case, and while it has found that limited application of the public interest immunity system in the UK does not necessarily violate article 2 obligations,²⁶ it has also found that its use has prevented review of potentially relevant material and therefore prevented an effective investigation.²⁷ Moreover, next-of-kin of victims have a right to participate in the proceedings, a right which must be safeguarded by the process so that they always have access to the investigation “to the extent necessary to safeguard [their] legitimate interests.”²⁸  

Both the JCHR and the House of Commons Justice Committee raised serious concerns about the lack of independence of inquests conducted by specially appointed coroners as well as the limits on the involvement of victims’ families.²⁹ The JCHR stated unequivocally that the proposal is “clearly not…compatible” with article 2 of the ECHR, and stressed that the appointment of a coroner by the Home Secretary “would be fatal to any appearance of independence.”³⁰

Human Rights Watch believes Part 6 should be struck from the bill, and any changes to the inquests system be considered in separate legislation at a later date.