Shipman case highlights shortfalls in coroners services
9th March 2007
Speaking in a House of Commons Adjournment Debate in Westminster Hall yesterday, Alan Whitehead pushed the government to not only change the responsiveness and effectiveness of the coroners’ system, but to also reform the administrative arrangements that substantially contribute to the difficulties that the service has encountered in the past.
The debate was an opportunity to discuss the report published by the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs on reform of the coroners’ system and death certification and the future of The Government’s draft Coroners Bill. As a member of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee Dr Whitehead was involved in hearing evidence and producing this report which was presented to government.
The coroners’ system which is one of the oldest features of our legal system has probably been subject to less change than any other part of the system. Its present shape is very much what it was in the 19th century, with coroners exercising a strictly limited geographical jurisdiction in a personal capacity, drawing their very limited resources of support in a variety of ways, from local authorities, police authorities or, in rural areas, the offices of their own legal practice. Whilst there are many strengths which would want to be retained - such as traditionally the coroner is usually a locally known and respected figure who serves the same jurisdiction for a long time and enjoys support in the local community, and many coroners’ staff and coroners’ officers, who are often ex-police officers or even serving police officers, are dedicated, considerate and kind in their dealings with bereaved families - there is also obvious need for reform.
The system is currently under severe strain and, in some cases, has been brought almost to the point of collapse by the limitations on its ability to cope with some major problems. The Harold Shipman case severely tested confidence in the coroners’ system and, even more, in the system of death certification and registration.
Dr Whitehead speaking in the debate said:
“If the coroners’ courts system is to be given the fresh start and modern approach that the Bill promises, it seems odd for the edifice to remain unchanged and, as was described recently:
“fragmented, non-accountable, variable in its processes and its quality, ineffective in part, archaic in its statutory basis, and very much dependent on the good people working in, or resourcing it.”
That statement is a description of the current structure of the service by the Secretary of State in the foreword to the draft Bill.
To go so far in changing the responsiveness and effectiveness of the system, and yet to leave it clothed in administrative arrangements that substantially contribute to the difficulties that the service has encountered in the past, and which is loved by very few, seems, to mangle a phrase, a bridge not far enough. I hope that the Government will reconsider that when the Bill is brought to the House.”
Speaking after the debate Dr Whitehead added:
“It is crucial that we recognise all the hard work of coroners and their offices and the many strengths in the coroners’ system whilst at the same time ensuring that the system is robust and accountable so that it is able to deal effectively when difficult cases present themselves like that of Harold Shipman. I will continue to press the government to bring our coroners’ system into the modern day.”