Provincial amendment proposed for in-custody deaths inquests

Vancouver civil-rights lawyer Cameron Ward believes that it’s a “very bad idea” to do away with mandatory inquests into deaths of individuals in police custody.

The prominent police watchdog was reacting to proposed legislative changes to the B.C. Coroners Act contained in an omnibus bill tabled by the B.C. Liberal government on March 22. He also suggested that the measure will make police less accountable.

“A coroner’s inquest has often been the only avenue by which a deceased’s loved one can learn the truth about what happened,” Ward told the Straight by phone. “It permits the full airing of the facts. In my view, this legislation reduces transparency, and it concerns me a great deal because it may result in these important cases being obscured and the details being withheld from public view.”

The proposed legislative amendments seek to provide the chief coroner the discretion to waive a compulsory inquest if the police in-custody death is due to natural causes and could not be prevented, not connected to the care or supervision of the police, or if the incident is the subject of a public inquiry.

In a phone interview, deputy chief coroner Norm Leibel noted that in a typical year, inquests are made into 15 to 20 police custody–related deaths.

“In some circumstances of those mandatory inquests, we have circumstances where there’s no preventability, there’s no sort of recommendations that would flow from such a public inquest, and there’s no real public interest or family interest with proceeding with that inquest either,” Leibel told the Straight.

By granting discretion to the chief coroner, Leibel explained further, mandatory inquests could be reduced by 30 to 40 percent. “The preparation for any public inquest is significant, and if you could see where that sort of energy could be put into some other types of death, then it’s a very positive side for everybody,” he said.

Ward, who has represented families of people who died at the hands of the police in several cases, doesn’t see any need to forgo mandatory inquests.

He explained that a coroner’s inquest is a public fact-finding investigation held before a jury. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the jury can make recommendations to prevent similar deaths. “Often, unfortunately, those recommendations, which aren’t binding, are ignored, but nonetheless it’s an important function that should be preserved,” the lawyer said.

Ward added that other avenues, like the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, are perceived by the public as “not very effective”.

Comments

We're now using Facebook for comments.

3 Comments

RodSmelser

Mar 25, 2010 at 9:35am

From the article

“The preparation for any public inquest is significant, and if you could see where that sort of energy could be put into some other types of death, then it’s a very positive side for everybody,” he [Liebel] said.

Ward, who has represented families of people who died at the hands of the police in several cases, doesn’t see any need to forgo mandatory inquests.

He explained that a coroner’s inquest is a public fact-finding investigation held before a jury. At the conclusion of the proceedings, the jury can make recommendations to prevent similar deaths.
================================

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Ward is saying do an inquest every time, whether it's requested or needed or not, and whether or not any "recommendations to prevent similar deaths" could possibly flow from an inquest in the particular case. Just do it every time, regardless.

Now, when some one wants an inquest every time, no matter the circumstances, what is their real interest? Is it preventing similar deaths in future, including doing inquests where no such recommendations will be forthcoming? Or is there another agenda at work here? Do inquests into deaths due to natural causes allow someone a platform they don't wish to surrender?

Rod Smelser

9 13Rating: -4

glen p robbins

Mar 25, 2010 at 10:51am

"In a typical year" "15-20 police custody - related deaths."

---The inference of the 'pre-conclusion' of "natural causes" as the point of discretion for the coroner (only) potentially increases the autonomy and political power of the coroner whose job --naturally --keeps him/her more proximate to the police by virtue of their jobs--and/who in this position--with "discretion" where someone has died "in custody"- would appear to be fairly far removed from the interests of the public, particularly in light of rather pronounced public demand for more transparency and accountability.

Based on the information in this story--I would vote against these "proposed" changes

glen p robbins

Roy Ennis

Mar 27, 2010 at 3:40pm

I agree that the coroner has more ties to the police than to the public, and that alone is sufficient reason to make public inquests mandatory. It is a shame that we can't trust anybody in or close to the whole law enforcement system, but it is also a fact.