Is the coroner right to reject investigating Elliott Johnson bullying claims?
Elliott Johnson’s parents, Alison and Ray Johnson, believe their son was being bullied by Conservative party members [Image: Ben Pruchnie/Getty].
Is the coroner right to say it is beyond the scope of the Elliott Johnson inquest to investigate claims that he was bullied?
A coroner’s power is limited to finding out who the deceased was; how, when and where that person met their death; and the particulars to be registered.
Coroners are very definitely not to investigate why a person died. The Court of Appeal ruled in 1994 that an inquest may not attribute blame or express judgement or opinion – and this is possible if an attempt is made to answer that question.
The reason coroners cannot ask that question is very important here: It would be unfair to those who might face criminal proceedings.
But in those cases, it is customary to adjourn an inquest after obtaining evidence of identity and cause of death, until any criminal proceedings have been completed.
Is that the case here?
It seems not.
So let us put the question of why he died to one side.
Instead, let us ask whether we can properly understand how he died without inquiring into the alleged bullying.
Can we?
This Writer would suggest that we cannot. The allegations are so closely connected with the death that, ignoring them, Mr Osborne may present us with an inaccurate verdict.
It would be wrong for him to ignore that possibility.
I wonder why he is trying to.
A coroner has refused to examine allegations of bullying within the Conservative party during an inquest into the death of the Tory activist Elliott Johnson, but will investigate his dismissal from a Thatcherite pressure group weeks before his death.
Lawyers for Ray and Alison Johnson, Elliott’s parents, argued at a hearing on Wednesday that the inquest into their son’s death should consider claims the 21-year-old suffered “inhuman and degrading” treatment at the hands of the Tory election aide Mark Clarke and others in the weeks before he died.
But in a written ruling released on Friday, Tom Osborne, the senior coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton, said it was “beyond the proper scope” of the inquest to call Tory party members to interrogate them over steps being taken to investigate bullying claims.
Source: Elliott Johnson: coroner rejects plea to examine bullying claims | Politics | The Guardian
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Why didn’t they call it harassment? !
Wasn’t the original RIPA regulation of investigatory powers bill snuck in as part of the Coroners Act ?
As that formed part of the framework coroners have to work within, why isn’t that being used to collect relevant data about how this person ended up dead ?
perhaps consultation by the coroner with the parents is needed.
Ways forward and legalities can be discussed, with delay of coroners decision pending a consultation.
Can the same question be asked about social security claimants who have been ‘bullied’ into DWP sanctions etc, and then killed themselves?
It would seem that the bullying and cause of death are inextricably linked, therefore evidence of the bullying should be heard. The refusal to do this leads one to suspect the Coroner doesn’t want to incriminate or embarrass senior Tory Party people
“Coroners are very definitely not to investigate why a person died. The Court of Appeal ruled in 1994 that an inquest may not attribute blame or express judgement or opinion – and this is possible if an attempt is made to answer that question”.
Where does that place the coroners who have fairly and squarely placed deaths by suicide on the DWP’s work program and sanctions? Is it not the same or is there some difference to do with suicide notes?
That’s about how they died. The coroners were saying the removal of benefits directly contributed to the deaths.
My experience of a coroners court was to be on the jury for 4 cases, the coroner didn’t seem to have any problem in listening to all the available evidence, and either attributing the blame or not to those who were deemed to be responsible. I think he would have not reported rather than not asked if any of them had to go to a criminal case.