Download your free guide now

Lorna Hardman, Partner

 

Lorna Hardman, Partner

t: 0115 976 6228

f: 0115 947 5246

lhardman@brownejacobson.com

|

Changes to the Coroners Bill announced

2 April 2008

 

The Government has announced revisions to its draft Coroners Bill and has committed to bringing the draft bill before parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows. This bulletin examines the three most important changes to the Bill which are likely to affect healthcare providers. We will be publishing more detailed guidance on the reforms once they become law.

 

Background

 

The draft Coroners Bill was published in June 2006 in the wake of the Shipman Inquiry Third Report. It has since been the subject of extensive consultation.

 

The fundamental aims of the Coroners Bill remain unaltered, namely to put bereaved families at the heart of the coronial system by giving them new powers to challenge Coroners’ decisions, to increase Coroners’ investigatory powers, to introduce a new appeals process and to introduce national leadership through the appointment of a Chief Coroner. However, a number of notable changes to the draft Bill have now been made.

 

Learning from serious untoward incidents

 

Currently, Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 allows Coroners to make recommendations to a person or authority with power to take appropriate action where they believe such action could prevent similar fatalities.

 

The revised Bill now requires organisations receiving such a report from a Coroner to respond. The Chief Coroner will monitor these reports and the responses received and will provide a summary of them in his or her annual report to parliament. In advance of the Bill becoming law, the Government has signalled its intention to strengthen the existing Rule 43, although at present it is unclear what is proposed.

 

In the meantime, healthcare providers should expect to see more Rule 43 recommendations from Coroners and should bear in mind that these are invariably announced publicly at the inquest. It is vital for organisations to carry out their own investigations promptly following a death which might be subject to a Coroner’s Inquiry. Adverse publicity can often be minimised if the organisation is in a position to demonstrate at the inquest that lessons have already been learned from the death.

 

Statutory reporting of deaths to the Coroner

 

The revised Bill seeks to introduce a requirement for registered medical practitioners to notify the Coroner of relevant deaths. Currently no such statutory requirement exists and there is considerable confusion amongst the medical profession as to which deaths might be reported.

 

The Government aims to resolve this confusion (once the Bill becomes law) by publishing regulations setting out the circumstances where deaths should be reported. This list will be put out for consultation.

 

Strengthening of Coroners’ powers to require documents

 

Currently Coroners do not have the power to require information or documents to be produced to them and have to apply to the High Court for an Order where documents are not disclosed voluntarily. The Bill will simplify this process, giving Coroners powers equivalent to the High Court. This will strengthen Coroners’ abilities to carry out in-depth investigations. The revised Bill removes a provision which would have allowed the Lord Chancellor to limit Coroners’ powers to require certain classes of documents.

 

It is important that healthcare providers have in place proper systems for providing information and documents to the Coroner, as the consequences of not doing so will become more serious in the future and it is vital to maintain a good relationship with the local Coroner. They should also bear in mind that Coroners are increasingly likely to request copies of Serious Untoward Incident Reports.

 

For more information please contact

Lorna Hardman.

 

 

The content of this bulletin is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.