Bereaved families are being caused distress by an “unwanted” duty for inquests to be carried out into deaths of anyone under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards order.
That was the message from the chief coroner in England and Wales, his honour judge Peter Thornton QC, in his 2015-16 annual report, which also warned the duty was causing “unnecessary” work for coroners and piling extra costs on councils.
The report revealed coroners held inquests for 7,183 people who died while under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations in 2015. This is the first year figures have been made available, although Thornton said they reflected a “substantially increased” caseload for coroners.
Thornton said the rise was one of the “unanticipated and unwanted consequences of statute and case law combined”, most notably the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s landmark ‘Cheshire West’ ruling in March 2014.
The ruling effectively lowered the threshold of what constitutes deprivation of liberty and in doing so triggered a ten-fold rise in DoLS authorisations. Coroners have been required to hold an inquest for anyone who dies while subject to the DoLS as they are considered as having died in “state detention” under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Thornton said coroners had responded to the requirement with “sensitivity and compassion” but warned the situation was angering families.
“Why they ask, should their elderly relative, who suffered from dementia and has died a natural death, suffer the indignity of the coroner process? There has been unnecessary work for coroners and additional cost for local authorities.”
The chief coroner has proposed that such cases should be removed from the category of “in state detention” under the 2009 act.
In response to the impact of the Cheshire West ruling, the government asked the Law Commission to review the DoLS and propose a replacement legal framework.
In an interim statement on its work, the commission recommended that people who die while subject to a deprivation of liberty authorisation should be scrutinised by medical examiners and not subject to coroner investigation unless there is a specific reason.
“While the chief coroner recognises this is a valid approach and would be an undoubted improvement upon the present position, the chief coroner believes that the action is required immediately. Hence his proposal [to amend the 2009 Act],” the report said.
The Law Commission is due to present its final recommendations to ministers by the end of the year.
A trauma-informed approach to social work: practice tips 
Problem gambling: how to recognise the warning signs 
Find out how to develop your emotional resilience with our free downloadable guide 
Develop your social work career with Community Care’s Careers and Training Guide 
‘Dear Sajid Javid: please end the inappropriate detention of autistic people and those with learning disabilities’
Ofsted calls for power to scrutinise children’s home groups
Seven in eight commissioners paying below ‘minimum rate for home care’
Facebook
X
LinkedIn
Instagram
The “unnecessary” inquests are certainly an issue but not one that should be confused with the implications of “Cheshire West”. It was a simple and well founded recommendation of the Law Commission that deaths during the currency of a DoLS should not be treated automatically as equivalent to “deaths in custody”. Deaths of elderly people with advanced dementia are hardly unexpected in most cases and need to be distinguished from those where there may be well founded suspicion of malpractice.
There is an argument that this could be sorted without waiting for the much more complex issues to be disentangled.
It is unessasary if the person has an illness and of old age to have an inquest. Plus the distress for family’s. Costing Government too much and holding up some inquest’s that need to be done earlier. My Son died aged 35 year’s in May and u have to wait for answer’s because of hold up’s. Very distressing.