Page 45 - When Things Go Wrong

Advantages

2.84 We consider that introduction of the SPI would be a considerable advance on
the current framework for inquests and public inquiries:

i. Points of overlap between inquests and public inquiries or other
independent inquiries would be avoided, as the SPI would obviate the
need for two processes. In particular, the new process would permit judges
and coroners to hear and if appropriate rely upon “closed” evidence,
avoiding the cumbersome process of conversion.
ii. The scope of the inquest could be expanded beyond present limitations to
include (proportionately) consideration of issues of wider importance
relating to obvious aspects of “serious public concern” or “systemic
failure”. This should reduce the number of calls for public inquiries,
whilst leaving open the possibility that Government might establish one
where appropriate.
iii. There would be a special and recognised focus on the needs of families
throughout the process, and from a very early stage.
iv. The procedure would be published and available at all times. It would be
expressed in clear and simple language.
v. The use of juries in the majority of cases would promote public trust and
confidence.
vi. The process of investigation would become more structured, particularly
in coordinating different investigations and avoiding delay.
vii. The process would also lead to a more significant exploration (than at
present) of factors which could save future lives and to more specific
recommendations. For example, the recognition that certain deaths in
different prisons are linked by a specific systemic failure could lead to a
marked reduction in deaths in custody.

2.85 Catastrophic events involving preventable deaths will by their very nature give
rise to anguish and lasting trauma. The Working Party considers that the
introduction of the SPI would serve to reduce duplication and delay, foster
certainty, ensure inclusion of bereaved people and survivors and ultimately
promote public trust in the system.

38