Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Meacher. I join her in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on his compelling introduction of the Bill.

I bring to this debate very little expertise about gambling. I have not served on any recent committees, nor played any part in the legislation that governs this process. I was lucky enough to be cured of any possible inclination to gamble 60 years ago when, as I was just reaching adulthood, an occasion arose when I was given 20 French francs to visit a casino at Cannes. At that time, 2 francs—getting on for a fiver today—was the minimum stake at the smallest roulette table. I placed, and lost, 10 straight 2-franc even bets and have never felt tempted since.

I recognise that gambling is a huge attraction to some—a craving, an addiction and, in truth, a cancer in our society today. While I have little knowledge about gambling, for a great number of years in the law I had a good deal to do with coroners, coronial law, inquests and verdicts. As Treasury counsel 40 years ago, I used to represent coroners in all the prominent legal cases of the day. I was later involved in most of the leading judgments on coroners; the proper scope of inquisitions and determinations; the critical differences that developed, not least under ECHR law; and the difference between a Jamieson inquest and a Middleton inquest—but do not worry: I will not weary your Lordships with all that.

It is critical for the purposes of the Bill to make it plain that throughout this mass of law down the years on the scope and purpose of inquests, one cardinal principle has remained intact:

“The function of an inquest is to seek out and record as many of the facts concerning the death as the public interest requires.”


That is a citation from a judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, in a case called Thompson way back in 1982.

I will mention one other case. The right reverend Prelate suggested that it was from 2018, but I think it was 2020. It is the case of Maughan in the Supreme Court. Here, by the narrowest of majorities—three to two—the Supreme Court finally decided on what had been differing views expressed over many years as to the standard of proof required for a coroner or a coroner’s jury to bring in a verdict or determination of suicide. It was established in Maughan that it is the civil standard, the “balance of probabilities”, not the criminal standard, “beyond reasonable doubt”.

In giving the judgment of the majority, Lady Arden, among much else—the judgments extend to some 40 pages—said:

“The criminal standard may lead to suicides being under-recorded and to lessons not being learnt … The reasons for suicide are often complex … There is a considerable public interest in accurate suicide statistics as they may reveal a need for social and medical care in areas not previously regarded as significant. Each suicide determination can help others by revealing how suicide risks may be managed in future.”


I suggest that the Bill is wholly consistent with that line of thinking. By the same token that it is important to get the standard of proof right, so as not to underreport suicides, so it is important to record as many of the relevant facts or factors as would ensure, in the public interest, that social evils such as problem gambling are not underrecorded.

I have formed no view about whether the precise language currently in the Bill could be improved. I refer in particular to where draft new Rule 35(1) refers to

“any factors which were relevant to the death”

and where draft Rule 35(2) refers to “an addiction to gambling”. Still less am I suggesting that any scheme of guidance such as the right reverend Prelate suggests may be forthcoming.

The important thing for now is that the Bill will ensure that, overall, the coronial process provides altogether more reliable figures than at present for assessing and thereby later, hopefully, assuaging the scale of this appalling social problem. We must give it a Second Reading.