I wrote on the first of April of this year about provisions in the Counter-Terrorism Bill for restricting the openness of inquests. It seems that it wasn’t just me who was concerned about some of the proposals; the Guardian reports that section 64 is under fire¹:

A cross-party committee of peers, including a former lord chief justice and two former attorney-generals, has told the government that any decision to hold an inquest without a jury must be taken by a judge and not a minister.

I cannot help but think that this would be a good thing. The bill is not necessary - as I said on the original post, things can be heard in camera if necessary - and, while I don’t think the Government would abuse the powers, this is handing a power to obfuscate government actions resulting in deaths to every future government. I don’t trust future governments, their members as yet unborn, sight unseen.

xD.

1 - the article says 63, but I think they mean 64.

Posted on Wednesday, August 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Categories: Justice, Politicae Britannicae, Politics.
RSS 2.0 feed for this post
Leave a comment
Trackback