This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/8051953.stm
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 2 | Version 3 |
---|---|
Straw drops secret inquest plans | Straw drops secret inquest plans |
(40 minutes later) | |
The government is dropping plans to hold secret inquests without juries, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said. | The government is dropping plans to hold secret inquests without juries, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said. |
In a Commons written statement, Mr Straw said the move did not command the necessary cross-party support, despite earlier government concessions. | In a Commons written statement, Mr Straw said the move did not command the necessary cross-party support, despite earlier government concessions. |
The decision has been welcomed by civil liberties campaigners. | |
Non-jury private inquests were included in the Coroners and Justice Bill earlier this year to cover cases involving sensitive information. | Non-jury private inquests were included in the Coroners and Justice Bill earlier this year to cover cases involving sensitive information. |
The government had argued that in some cases inquests should be held in private for national security, crime prevention or diplomatic reasons. | The government had argued that in some cases inquests should be held in private for national security, crime prevention or diplomatic reasons. |
We welcome this sane and humble climbdown Shami Chakrabarti, Liberty | |
In response to criticism, Mr Straw tightened the proposed rules in March. He altered the plans so a High Court judge, rather than ministers, would have the final decision over whether the press and public would be banned from an inquest. | In response to criticism, Mr Straw tightened the proposed rules in March. He altered the plans so a High Court judge, rather than ministers, would have the final decision over whether the press and public would be banned from an inquest. |
In his statement on Friday, Mr Straw said: "The government felt these changes struck a fair and proportionate balance between the interests of bereaved families, the need to protect sensitive material and judicial oversight of the whole process. | In his statement on Friday, Mr Straw said: "The government felt these changes struck a fair and proportionate balance between the interests of bereaved families, the need to protect sensitive material and judicial oversight of the whole process. |
"However, following further discussions in the House and with interested parties, it is clear the provisions still do not command the necessary cross-party support and in the circumstances the government will table amendments to remove clauses 11 and 12 from the bill." | "However, following further discussions in the House and with interested parties, it is clear the provisions still do not command the necessary cross-party support and in the circumstances the government will table amendments to remove clauses 11 and 12 from the bill." |
He added that where it was not possible to proceed with an inquest under existing arrangements, the government would consider establishing an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 instead. | He added that where it was not possible to proceed with an inquest under existing arrangements, the government would consider establishing an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 instead. |
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties campaign group Liberty, said: "We welcome this sane and humble climb-down. | |
"It was completely bizarre for a government that has spent over a decade lecturing the public about victims' rights to attempt to exclude bereaved families from open justice." |