Coroners inquest, what to expect?
Discussion
Hi Guys,
On Tuesday, I am going to my late mothers inquest. The coroner has been great, as have all the associated staff, but I am still a little unsure about what to expect and what may/will happen. I would be grateful for any useful information and all positive responses.
Thanks in anticipation.
On Tuesday, I am going to my late mothers inquest. The coroner has been great, as have all the associated staff, but I am still a little unsure about what to expect and what may/will happen. I would be grateful for any useful information and all positive responses.
Thanks in anticipation.
i have attended many inquests down the years so maybe can shed some light but i'm sure that someone who knows better will be along shortly. i've attended as a representative of health care providers, usually following a suicide ( i'm in a risky business), sometimes as witness but also to support staff who are being required to give evidence.
an inquest is called when a body lying in the coroner's jurisdiction has suffered a violent or unnatural death, has died a sudden death and the cause is unknown or where the death has occurred in a place that requires an inquest by other statute eg, prison.
the clue is in the title - it's an inquisitorial process designed to answer what are often referred to as the statutory questions. these are: who died?, when did they die?, where did they die? and how did they die.
the coroner or jury (if there is one) are excluded by law from commenting on any other matter. any witnesses being called are there to assist the coroner in establishing the material facts of the case. it is not a trial and there are not sides or parties as in court. witnesses should only be questioned on matters which are relevant to establishing the facts.
the coroner must be a solicitor, barrister or medical practitioner. they are independent judicial officers and, whilst there are legal requirements as to years service, most will have risn to the highest level i their chose field. they are highly experienced and, with only one exception, i have always found them to be exttremely skilled in asking the "right" questions in pursuance of the facts of the case
Juries are only called in particular circumstances. your inquest may have one as the death may have brought to light acts which may be detrimental to ongoing public health
the coroner will take witnesses through their reports (which will have been before him for some time pre-inquest) and will take the opportunity to seek clarification of points therein. other parties are allowed to question witnesses (can't remember all the details of who)but this should be restricted to establishing facts (although i have been at one inquest where this went spectacularly awry and my Trust legal bods had to get involved. I believe questions were asked in Parliament about the conduct of this particular coroner on another matter so should have expected it really).
there is no exhaustive list of verdicts, contrary to common belief and no verdict should be phrased so as to seek to suggest any civil or criminal liability for the death. more commonly, a narrative verdict will be produced - this will be a statement of fact made by the coroner, which whilst answering the stautory questions, will also provide a factual statement of the causative events.
for further info, might be worth getting hold of the coroner's officer and asking for a brief meeting for them to offer more advice/info
regards
paul
an inquest is called when a body lying in the coroner's jurisdiction has suffered a violent or unnatural death, has died a sudden death and the cause is unknown or where the death has occurred in a place that requires an inquest by other statute eg, prison.
the clue is in the title - it's an inquisitorial process designed to answer what are often referred to as the statutory questions. these are: who died?, when did they die?, where did they die? and how did they die.
the coroner or jury (if there is one) are excluded by law from commenting on any other matter. any witnesses being called are there to assist the coroner in establishing the material facts of the case. it is not a trial and there are not sides or parties as in court. witnesses should only be questioned on matters which are relevant to establishing the facts.
the coroner must be a solicitor, barrister or medical practitioner. they are independent judicial officers and, whilst there are legal requirements as to years service, most will have risn to the highest level i their chose field. they are highly experienced and, with only one exception, i have always found them to be exttremely skilled in asking the "right" questions in pursuance of the facts of the case
Juries are only called in particular circumstances. your inquest may have one as the death may have brought to light acts which may be detrimental to ongoing public health
the coroner will take witnesses through their reports (which will have been before him for some time pre-inquest) and will take the opportunity to seek clarification of points therein. other parties are allowed to question witnesses (can't remember all the details of who)but this should be restricted to establishing facts (although i have been at one inquest where this went spectacularly awry and my Trust legal bods had to get involved. I believe questions were asked in Parliament about the conduct of this particular coroner on another matter so should have expected it really).
there is no exhaustive list of verdicts, contrary to common belief and no verdict should be phrased so as to seek to suggest any civil or criminal liability for the death. more commonly, a narrative verdict will be produced - this will be a statement of fact made by the coroner, which whilst answering the stautory questions, will also provide a factual statement of the causative events.
for further info, might be worth getting hold of the coroner's officer and asking for a brief meeting for them to offer more advice/info
regards
paul
I went to my late Dad's coroners inquest with my sister just before last Christmas, and it was a pretty rough experience, not least of which because it took a full year for it to finally happen.
What we were surprised about when it came to it was that the format of it wasn't made clear to us, or how important it would (or could) be that we attended. Obviously it would've carried on without us being there, but we genuinely thought that we'd just be passive observers if we attended whereas in actuality we were sat very near the front, and had the opportunity to question our father's GP, etc. We hadn't prepared questions because it wasn't made clear to us until we were there that this was how it worked. I still feel a measure of guilt about not having done him the full service so to speak because of this.
As you have pointed out it won't be any worse than having already read your late mother's medical records which, if they were anything like my fathers, went into considerable unemotional detail. Be prepared for this to be read out in the inquest.
My thoughts will be with you for tomorrow, hope it isn't too upsetting.
What we were surprised about when it came to it was that the format of it wasn't made clear to us, or how important it would (or could) be that we attended. Obviously it would've carried on without us being there, but we genuinely thought that we'd just be passive observers if we attended whereas in actuality we were sat very near the front, and had the opportunity to question our father's GP, etc. We hadn't prepared questions because it wasn't made clear to us until we were there that this was how it worked. I still feel a measure of guilt about not having done him the full service so to speak because of this.
As you have pointed out it won't be any worse than having already read your late mother's medical records which, if they were anything like my fathers, went into considerable unemotional detail. Be prepared for this to be read out in the inquest.
My thoughts will be with you for tomorrow, hope it isn't too upsetting.
I went to my late father-in-laws inquest. He died in an RTC on a motorway when he hit a Chassis cab that had recently pulled from the hard shoulder into L1.
The coroner was a retired GP. He had decided the crash was 100% my FIL's fault and so his line of questioning actively led all the witnesses in that direction, rather than trying to establish the facts.
The guy driving the Chassis cab told a number of lies (and some truth) and had destroyed his tacho chart immediately after the crash (although I don't believe he was required to be using the tacho).
The medical evidence was pretty gory.
All in all it was a highly unsatisfactory experience. My FIL may or may not have been the author of his own misfortune - the inquest did almost zero in getting any closer to the truth.
I hope yours is better.
The coroner was a retired GP. He had decided the crash was 100% my FIL's fault and so his line of questioning actively led all the witnesses in that direction, rather than trying to establish the facts.
The guy driving the Chassis cab told a number of lies (and some truth) and had destroyed his tacho chart immediately after the crash (although I don't believe he was required to be using the tacho).
The medical evidence was pretty gory.
All in all it was a highly unsatisfactory experience. My FIL may or may not have been the author of his own misfortune - the inquest did almost zero in getting any closer to the truth.
I hope yours is better.
Edited by V8forweekends on Monday 30th March 12:23
My sister died in very unpleasant and tragic circumstances,the police and social services where involved,it was a horrible time for me.
I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
Old Merc said:
My sister died in very unpleasant and tragic circumstances,the police and social services where involved,it was a horrible time for me.
I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
Which is why the Coroner exists as an office and why the inquest process exists as it does . the coroner'I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
s system is one of the first examples of 'no blame ' / 'fair blame' investigation .
mph1977 said:
Old Merc said:
My sister died in very unpleasant and tragic circumstances,the police and social services where involved,it was a horrible time for me.
I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
Which is why the Coroner exists as an office and why the inquest process exists as it does . the coroner'I was out to blame everyone,including myself and getting very distressed,even consulting a lawyer.
The inquest did its job,it did not blame anyone.It went through the whole process of how she died,the cause of death,everything was taken into account including her life style etc etc.
Not a nice experience but it made me feel a lot better.With all the facts put in front of me it made me see the situation in a different way.
s system is one of the first examples of 'no blame ' / 'fair blame' investigation .
I hope that is true for the OP - it certainly was not so for my late FIL.
V8forweekends said:
I hope that is true for the OP - it certainly was not so for my late FIL.
unfortunately , and this is something which the denziens of PH are not very good at acknowledging exists , never mind the impact it has , people carry their own biases into any encounter ...
The coroners only job is to ascertain the cause of death. If you are worried about the treatment she had that is probably not the best way.
Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
julian64 said:
The coroners only job is to ascertain the cause of death. If you are worried about the treatment she had that is probably not the best way.
Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
As the case has gone to the coroner and reached the point of an inquest , there will have been a post mortem conducted by an independent consultant Pathologist. Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
Coroners are one or both of Legally and Clinically Qualified - one, either or both is irrelevant in the strictest terms of the role of the Coroner as they will be weight to the pathologist;s report, any review(s) of the clinical records and so on ...
I assume the OP is looking towards either a narrative verdict or an outright unlawful killing verdict ( which barring as a Allitt / Geen type scenario is unliely) , and then the content of the narrative verdict being used in civil and/or criminal actions against the trust if there appears to be a case from there....
mph1977 said:
julian64 said:
The coroners only job is to ascertain the cause of death. If you are worried about the treatment she had that is probably not the best way.
Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
As the case has gone to the coroner and reached the point of an inquest , there will have been a post mortem conducted by an independent consultant Pathologist. Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
Coroners are one or both of Legally and Clinically Qualified - one, either or both is irrelevant in the strictest terms of the role of the Coroner as they will be weight to the pathologist;s report, any review(s) of the clinical records and so on ...
I assume the OP is looking towards either a narrative verdict or an outright unlawful killing verdict ( which barring as a Allitt / Geen type scenario is unliely) , and then the content of the narrative verdict being used in civil and/or criminal actions against the trust if there appears to be a case from there....
Hi Guys,
As a family, we made a formal complaint to the hospital in September when the problem occurred. Sadly mum died in October and the coroner decided an inquest was appropriate. I have sent the coroner a quite detailed report giving the facts from our side and our concerns. I received a letter in early February from the hospital, saying that they have concluded their investigation into our complaint and I would receive a copy after the departments concerned had been notified, I am still waiting! I have been interviewed by the coroners police officer and, as previously stated, have got copies of mums medical records from the hospital (at a cost of nearly £500),which I have read and made notes. I have got questions to ask the appropriate people and am now just hoping to get it over with ASAP.
I will update you when it is done. Thanks for all your help.
As a family, we made a formal complaint to the hospital in September when the problem occurred. Sadly mum died in October and the coroner decided an inquest was appropriate. I have sent the coroner a quite detailed report giving the facts from our side and our concerns. I received a letter in early February from the hospital, saying that they have concluded their investigation into our complaint and I would receive a copy after the departments concerned had been notified, I am still waiting! I have been interviewed by the coroners police officer and, as previously stated, have got copies of mums medical records from the hospital (at a cost of nearly £500),which I have read and made notes. I have got questions to ask the appropriate people and am now just hoping to get it over with ASAP.
I will update you when it is done. Thanks for all your help.
Mr.Chips said:
Hi Guys,
As a family, we made a formal complaint to the hospital in September when the problem occurred. Sadly mum died in October and the coroner decided an inquest was appropriate. I have sent the coroner a quite detailed report giving the facts from our side and our concerns. I received a letter in early February from the hospital, saying that they have concluded their investigation into our complaint and I would receive a copy after the departments concerned had been notified, I am still waiting! I have been interviewed by the coroners police officer and, as previously stated, have got copies of mums medical records from the hospital (at a cost of nearly £500),which I have read and made notes. I have got questions to ask the appropriate people and am now just hoping to get it over with ASAP.
I will update you when it is done. Thanks for all your help.
I suspect that once it became apparent the Coroner was involved and it would go to inquest the trust will have either stopped working on the complaint or will be holding off giving you results ahead of the Inquest at the behest of the trust's legal beagles.As a family, we made a formal complaint to the hospital in September when the problem occurred. Sadly mum died in October and the coroner decided an inquest was appropriate. I have sent the coroner a quite detailed report giving the facts from our side and our concerns. I received a letter in early February from the hospital, saying that they have concluded their investigation into our complaint and I would receive a copy after the departments concerned had been notified, I am still waiting! I have been interviewed by the coroners police officer and, as previously stated, have got copies of mums medical records from the hospital (at a cost of nearly £500),which I have read and made notes. I have got questions to ask the appropriate people and am now just hoping to get it over with ASAP.
I will update you when it is done. Thanks for all your help.
julian64 said:
The coroners only job is to ascertain the cause of death. If you are worried about the treatment she had that is probably not the best way.
Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
Coroner's duties extend beyond that, including preventing similar deaths in the future. See "report under regulation 28"Of the coroners cases I've been to they are fairly formal and most of the time the coroner isn't even medically qualified.
PALS group or discussion through the GP, or even a formal meeting with the hospital consultant is probably the best way to actually understand the problems
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff