Sudden death: Coroner or copper?

June 14, 2007 2:28 AM

I'm confused about when a sudden death becomes a coroner investigation, rather than a police investigation (UK).

The coroner is supposed to investigate sudden deaths and can hold a jury trial to investigate the cause of death. But doesn't that tread on the toes of the police? Who decides if a sudden death is a coroner investigation or a police investigation? Can the two take place simultaneously? What are the criteria for deciding who handles it?

posted by humblepigeon to law & government (13 comments total)

The coroner determines if the death warrants police investigation, as the coroner has the technical expertise to figure such things out.

In California, if you die of unknown cause while not under a physicians care, it is automatic autopsy (what the coroner does). This happened to me when my late partner died. It was over the New Year's holiday, and the brutality was the WEEK delay before getting his remains to the funeral home.

Obviously, I've no idea how this works in the UK, but the principles would be similar, I'm sure.
posted by Goofyy at 2:38 AM on June 14, 2007

The coroner determines if the death warrants police investigation, as the coroner has the technical expertise to figure such things out.

In the UK the coroner is a legal office, so it's different from the US. Coroners are typically laywers rather than doctors, although some are medical professionals. They investigate sudden death by examining the evidence at a later date, rather than "hands-on" at a crime scene. As far as I know. But that's what I want to know.
posted by humblepigeon at 2:54 AM on June 14, 2007

This guide from the Department for Constitutional Affairs gives a brief rundown on the work of the coroner. It looks as though they investigate whatever deaths are reported to them.
posted by goo at 3:19 AM on June 14, 2007

Unfortunately that link doesn't load the full page in Opera. In IE it's fine. Sorry.
posted by goo at 3:20 AM on June 14, 2007

This guide from the Department for Constitutional Affairs gives a brief rundown on the work of the coroner

That's just what I want. Thanks. I had searched for this kind of info but that page didn't turn-up. I think maybe my Google skills need brushing up.

I'll mark the answer as best but if anybody else has any info then please add a post.
posted by humblepigeon at 3:26 AM on June 14, 2007

This guide (pdf) from INQUEST is helpful - esp. p5 sets out the difference between the inquest and a trial.

This FAQ from the Powys coroner is good too.
posted by patricio at 3:39 AM on June 14, 2007

Based on cases I'm aware of, good luck finding a hard and fast rule! Coroners sometimes hold off from getting involved until criminal proceedings have run their course and sometimes don't. In other ways too, the system seems very much influenced by the personality of the individual coroner; for example (journalist speaking here) they don't seem to be subject to the same requirements to make records of court proceedings available to the public.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 3:48 AM on June 14, 2007

I read up on this in Halsbury's Laws of England: Coroners. It doesn't seem to say anything on the question you are answering, which means that it is up to the coroner.
posted by grouse at 4:07 AM on June 14, 2007

question you are answering asking
posted by grouse at 4:07 AM on June 14, 2007

Coroners hold an inquest to discover the cause of death where it is in question.

The police investigate crimes where there is evidence they have been committed.

The Coroner usually has a Coroner's Officer, generally a former copper, who carries out their investigations. These guys work closely with their colleagues and if there is any evidence of foul play the cops will be called in and take over the investigation.
posted by unSane at 5:47 AM on June 14, 2007

as i understand british law, the coroner can't do anything until he or she has the body of the victim. this quirk was a central feature in dorothy l. sayers' have his carcass.
posted by bruce at 9:35 AM on June 14, 2007

bruce:

(1) Where a coroner has reason to believe—

(a) that a death has occurred in or near his district in such circumstances that an inquest ought to be held; and

(b) that owing to the destruction of the body by fire or otherwise, or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, an inquest cannot be held except in pursuance of this section,

he may report the facts to the Secretary of State.

(2) Where a report is made under subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, if he considers it desirable to do so, direct a coroner (whether the coroner making the report or another) to hold an inquest into the death.

(3) Where a coroner is directed under this section to hold an inquest, the provisions of this Act and the law relating to coroners and coroners' inquests shall apply with such modifications as may be necessary in consequence of the inquest being one into the death of a person whose body does not lie within the coroner's district.

Coroners Act 1988 s 15, derived from the Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926, s 18.
posted by grouse at 9:48 AM on June 14, 2007

You might be interested in this brief history of the coroner system (from the Coroners' Society website). Also the very useful Coroners' Law Resource (from King's College London).

The first thing that happens, after someone dies, is that a doctor has to sign the death certificate. In most cases this is a purely routine matter. But if (e.g.) the cause of death is not immediately obvious, then the doctor will not sign a certificate, and the case will be referred to the coroner's office. Depending on the circumstances, the coroner may order a post-mortem, or may call in the police -- and the case proceeds from there. So the answer to your question is that the coroner and the police work very closely together, and it is quite possible for the coroner's investigation and the police investigation to proceed simultaneously.

The whole system is currently under review, mainly as a result of the Shipman case, which exposed the ghastly flaw in the system, i.e. that a rogue doctor could murder a patient and sign the death certificate, and neither the coroner nor the police would ever get to hear about it.

I can't resist a brief digression on Golden Age detective novels. In the classic novels of the 1930s and 1940s, the relationship between the coroner and the police is often very strained; the two operate almost independently, and the police often withhold information from the coroner for reasons of their own, e.g. so that the murderer doesn't realise he is under suspicion. But the role of the coroner has changed so much in recent years that most of this is now thoroughly out of date: e.g. the situation in Margery Allingham's Flowers for the Judge (1936), where the coroner's jury not only bring in a verdict of murder but also name the person they think is responsible (and of course get it wrong, thus creating a dreadful tangle which only Albert Campion can sort out) couldn't happen today. Much of the coroner's work now goes on behind the scenes, not at the public inquest.
posted by verstegan at 4:06 AM on June 15, 2007