Although Coroner’s courts are often said to be somewhat more informal than other courts, they are a part of the justice system, and the Coroner holds a judicial position.
Coroners have statutory powers available to them to pursue their investigations, including to compel the production of documents, witness accounts, the attendance of witnesses at a hearing, and to sanction those who interfere with, mislead, or prejudice the inquest process.
Although Coroner’s courts are often said to be somewhat more informal than other courts, they are a part of the justice system, and the Coroner holds a judicial position. Coroners are empowered to impose penalties on those individuals or organisations whose conduct, in the physical court itself, may obstruct or prejudice the administration of justice; or is in disobedience to a notice issued by the court compelling production of documents or summonsing a witness.
While sanctions for contempt in the Coroner’s court are a relatively rare event, individuals or organisations which are likely to be engaged in inquests should be aware of them. There have been recent examples of organisations being fined, or individuals being jailed, for failing to cooperate with Coroner’s inquests. Below we set out some (but not all) of the offences that can arise in the course of an inquest.
Contempt in the face of the court
Within the courtroom itself, examples of contempt “in the face of the court” (i.e. physically in the courtroom or court building) include disorderly or insolent conduct interrupting court proceedings, using offensive language or attacking or undermining the integrity of the court or its processes.
The Coroner’s powers in this regard extend to the courtroom or court building, and the power may only be exercised when it is imperative to act immediately. Offences that are discovered later should be referred to the police. Where the contempt is denied, but the Coroner rules the contempt proved, they can consider and impose a maximum fine of £2,500 or, where the contempt is so serious that no other penalty is appropriate, a Coroner may send an offender to prison for up to one month. Another general contempt offence which applies to all courts is that of making or attempting to make a photograph, video, or even a sketch of any person involved in the proceedings while on court premises. This is both a contempt ‘in the face of the court,’ and may also be a criminal offence (s. 41 Criminal Justice Act 1925), punishable on summary conviction with a maximum fine of £1,000.
Perhaps more significantly in the modern era, making or attempting to make or publish an unauthorised audio or video recording is a contempt of court offence (s. 9 Contempt of Court Act 1981) which can apply to remote or hybrid hearings held via video links, which is now common practice.
Contempt by witnesses
Examples include:
1) A witness who refuses to be sworn in, leaves the court before their evidence is completed, or refuses to answer a relevant and necessary question (including opinion, where the witness has the knowledge and expertise to answer).
The penalties are set out above. There are some forms of privilege to refuse to answer that can be invoked, but these apply in specific and narrow circumstances. One such form is “Rule 22” – a witness cannot be compelled to answer a question if their answer would tend to self-incriminate them. This applies only to the witness’ personal criminal liability, not civil or professional liability or the liabilities of another person. The Coroner decides if the witness is entitled to rely upon it.
2) A witness who fails to attend court at all can have a ‘bench warrant’ issued to enforce their attendance - by the police finding them, detaining them, and physically bringing them to court.
3) There are also specific criminal offences contained in the Coroner’s and Justice Act 2009 (Schedule 6, Part 2, section 7) relating to any conduct which may distort or alter any evidence given, prevent it from being given, or intentionally suppress, conceal, alter or destroy a relevant document. Prosecutions under these powers can only proceed with the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
The first such prosecution since the legislation came into effect was in 2019. While the events are unusual, it illustrates the severe consequences that can flow from obstructing or not engaging with an inquest investigation.
In 2019, following the inquest in the West London Coroner’s court into the 2016 death of Sophie Bennett, a witness in the case was jailed for four months having failed to appear at the inquest when summoned. This unusual criminal prosecution of a healthcare staff member followed an even more unusual series of events:
- “Dr” Duncan Lawrence (a non-clinician who staff had initially thought was a medical doctor), was described as the “clinical lead” of a specialist mental health residential home at which Ms Bennett died.
- It is understood that he initially said he could not attend the inquest because he was overseas, caring for his sick mother in Alaska. He agreed to appear by video link. In a test call, he was initially represented by an imposter.
- When the ruse was discovered shortly after, the Coroner demanded he appear by video link; he did not. There were claims he was actually in London. The Coroner initially fined him £650 for breach of a Schedule 5 Notice and referred the matter to the police.
- A subsequent prosecution for withholding evidence in relation to an inquest was pursued by the CPS. He was described as having “showed a flagrant disregard for the inquest and its processes”. Mr Lawrence pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months imprisonment by Wimbledon Magistrates court. The District Judge remarked at sentencing, “There is a good reason why people should attend or provide documents to a coroner when carrying out such an inquest, and that is expected to be done with full co-operation and without delay. You frustrated that process.”
4) Disobedience to a Schedule 5 Notice
Coroners have the power, under Schedule 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, to summon witnesses or require the production of documents. This is commonly known as a ‘Schedule 5 Notice.’ Such a notice may require the recipient to (a) provide a witness statement (b) produce documents or an object for inspection and/or (c) attend a hearing at a specific date, time, and place to do so.
Not attending or not producing the requested statement, document or item in the timescale specified will breach the notice.
If a Schedule 5 notice is breached, the Coroner must give the person an opportunity to receive legal advice and to explain their failure to comply. Failure to comply without reasonable excuse may lead to a fine of up to £1,000.
In February 2025, it was reported that the Ministry of Justice was fined £500 by the Area Coroner for Nottingham, for failure to comply with three such notices between October and December 2024, to produce records relating to a death in custody. Some (but not all) of the information, amounting to more than 1000 pages, was eventually submitted in early January 2025, just two working days before the inquest hearing was due to start. The Coroner noted that the Ministry of Justice had been aware of the inquest for over a year and had “ample time to get their house in order.” While the financial fine was perhaps trivial for a large organisation, the case was reported in a variety of news media and organisations will want to avoid a public record of non-compliance with court orders for reputational reasons.
The case in turn also illustrates the nature of consequences that can follow from failing to engage fully with the inquest process.
Both the above cases clearly illustrate the wide-ranging powers that Coroners can deploy, and the seriousness with which Coroners will approach any party who fails to cooperate with or seeks to subvert their investigation.
How we can help
Engaging expert advisors to represent you or your organisation in an inquest mitigates these risks. These consequences can follow not just from wilful lack of cooperation but also inadvertent mistakes or failures to act in time to cooperate with the investigation. Coroners will take a dim view of those who can only plead that a lack of understanding or plain incompetence led them to miss a court order requiring disclosure or fail to attend a hearing. Ensuring you or your organisation is properly advised by experienced inquest lawyers who can advise fully on legal risks, disclosure requirements, marshalling relevant witness and documentary evidence, and representation in court is the surest way of avoiding the possible sanctions for not fully engaging with an inquest.