BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers

Subject: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:38 PM

I have long been exercised by the fact that a Coroner at an inquest here in UK has the power to inform a jury, before thay consider their verdict, what their options are: i.e. what verdicts he will refuse to accept. I cannot understand what the point is of even having a so-called jury if their powers of decision are to be so restricted by another party. It was long ago established, in the case of R v Penn which led ultimately to the foundation of Pennsylvania, that the judge in a criminal trial had no power to insist on any verdict from a jury — I have even heard of cases in which a judge has directed a jury to acquit a defendant whom he judged had no case to answer, only to have an awkward body of jurors decline to do so.

This anomaly was recently most prominently displayed in the notorious De Menezes killing by the Metropolitan Police who mistakenly took him for a terrorist, when a High Court judge was appointed a for·the·nonce coroner and informed the jury that he would not 'accept' a verdict of Unlawful Killing. Why, or how, is it the business of the coroner, rather than the jury, to decide what a verdict can be? And what is the point of being a juror on such an occasion? And what would happen if the jury returned & said, "We are all agreed that this was unlawful killing, and that is our verdict whatever you say, and what are you going to do about it?"

Perhaps one of the lawyers who infest Mudcat could explain these things, which are beyond my poor layman's powers to comprehend.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:54 PM

"Perhaps one of the lawyers who infest Mudcat could explain these things, which are beyond my poor layman's powers to comprehend."

Perhaps you meant visit or post to? Infest?? Good lord.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:57 PM

Sorry - the word 'infest' was not intended pejoratively: I merely meant that there seem to be a lot of them out there who can usually come up with the answers to queries like the one I have posted.

Lawyers, I apologise unreservedly — I really do know you from mice when I see you.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:14 AM

Stuff about it here. I THINK it's in English.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:24 AM

Oh, yes, thank you 999. I don't suggest for a moment that coroners are not acting within the Rules; it's the sense of, and reason for, this particular rule that I query. I say again, why HAVE a jury if they can't decide of a verdict? & also I ask again what the coroner could do if the jury declined to feel bound by it & refused to deliver ANY verdict other than the one they thought was called for, whatever restrictions the coroner might have previously chosen, under the Rules, to place on them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:32 AM

I'm talking out me arse here, but I'd suspect that directions from a judge, etc., might be to present the allowable verdicts. Example: a convict is caught on film piping a fellow convict. The judge would likely not accept a verdict of accidental death.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:41 AM

The judge in a criminal trial would be bound to accept a jury's verdict, however perverse. Unpopular laws have at times been altered due to persistent refusal by juries to convict even against overwhelming evidence of guilt: in e.g. cases where under the laws of the time a child might have been transported, or even hanged, for a small theft — it was, at least in part, campaigns of non-conviction by juries which led to such draconian penalties being abolished.

The coroner [not 'judge'] in an inquest, is not so required. That is the point of my query.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: GUEST,999
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:03 AM

It's definitely beyond me, buddy. Hope one of the legal folks show up. Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:10 AM

From the article linked by GUEST,999:

36 Matters to be ascertained at inquest

(1) The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters, namely--
(a) who the deceased was;
(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(c) the particulars for the time being required by the Registration Acts to be registered concerning the death.
(2) Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on any other matters.

Although the "how" in (b) might be subject to some interpretation, the remaining description of the duties of the coroner suggest that the meaning is limited to the physical "how," and according to (2) it would be appropriate for the coroner to instruct the jury that it was not within their authority to determine "wrongful" or "righteous."

Additonally:

42 Verdict

No verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of--
(a) criminal liability on the part of a named person, or
(b) civil liability.

From the viewpoint of one casual reader uninformed as to precedents and practices, the rules written in the cited article would appear to support what reportedly was done. (?????)

But IANAL, in the UK or elsewhere.

John

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:22 AM

Thanks, John. But in a way both you & 999 were/are "begging the question" in the correct philosophical ignorantio elenchi sense of assuming the answer in replying to the question. I know what the rules are, and that the coroner has entitlements within them. My query is as to whether they should be so; as to what is the point of having a jury at all if the rules forbid them to decide unfetteredly on verdicts; & what could the coroner do if they declined, having heard all the facts, to be bound by them in reaching a verdict. These still seem to me worthwhile questions, in the light of the way these rules are sometimes used, as in e.g. the De Menezes case.

Subject: RE: BS: UK inquest verdicts: coroner's powers
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 05 Dec 09 - 04:17 AM

MtheGM -

Your statement in the first post was:

Why, or how, is it the business of the coroner, rather than the jury, to decide what a verdict can be?

The LAW governing the purpose and conduct of a coroner in a coroners inquest appears to rather specifically state what the jury is to determine, and rather specifically states what it may not determine.

It would appear that your objection is that the law is wrong, and that the coroners inquest should delve into matters reserved for other kinds of proceedings.

In the US, the coroner makes similar decisions, but usually without a jury. The identity of the deceased is determined, when possible. The immediate circumstances of the death, and cause of death are determined when possible.

Whether a crime was committed is a matter commonly decided by a grand jury, or by an officer of a different court system (e.g. an attorney general), who makes the decision whether to request/demand a criminal court trial.

It is only in the criminal court here that a jury is permitted (and required) to be convinced that a crime has occured and that someone is reasonably likely to have committed a crime.

Your quibbling over failure of the coroners inquiry to permit the jury from making decisions which they are prohibited by law from making seems akin to asking why a lynch mob isn't intitled to take action without recourse to the law.

If you believe that there was a crime, your question should be why the authorities properly responsible for proceeding in the appropriate other court(s) failed to proceed after the coroners inquest did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Perhaps you, or someone else more interested in the operations of UK law, should look at who was supposed to have the authority and obligation to have taken a next step (?), rather than protesting that the coroner did as it appears (s)he(?) was supposed to do.

I have little interest or inclination to engage in a discussion of whether your law is honest, efficient, fair, just, or effective. We have enough questions in those matters with our own legal systems in the US.

John