ENGLAND AND IRELAND

The Coroner‘s Court.—The office of coroner is mentioned in a charter in 925. Coroners were formerly chosen for life by the freeholders of the district, but their election is now in the hands of the County Councils. Their duties were first clearly pointed out by the Act 4 Edw. I. c. 2, 1275 (De officio coronatoris).

At the present time the duties of the coroner are chiefly to hold inquiry into the cause of death when there is any reason to doubt that death resulted from natural causes.

When death results from natural causes, and under ordinary conditions, the medical attendant is bound, under a penalty of forty shillings, to certify as to the cause. The registrar of deaths accepts such a certificate when accompanied by oral testimony given by a person who was present at the time of death, and issues a certificate accordingly, authorising the interment of the deceased.

Should conditions obtain to prevent the medical attendant from forming an opinion as to the cause of death, or which would lead him to infer that death did not take place from natural causes, he should notify the matter to the coroner. Such would be necessary if death were directly or indirectly due to accident, or if death occurred within a reasonable time after an accident, although due to some other cause, or if an accident happened to deceased during the course of a chronic illness, the accident, however, not being in itself necessarily fatal.

It would be necessary also to notify the coroner if the death took place under circumstances which, to the medical attendant, appeared suspicious, such as might arise from culpable neglect or cruelty on the part of persons in charge of the deceased. The same would apply to cases in which the cause of death was unknown. A great responsibility rests on the medical practitioner, in that he is compelled under a penalty to certify as to the cause of death; while if he do so without due consideration, or carelessly, he renders himself liable to censure or legal proceedings.

It may happen that in certain cases—for example, where an accident befell the deceased during the course of a lingering illness, and which in itself had no causal relations to the death—the doctor may be prone to certify the death as from the illness alone, taking no note of the accident; and pressure may be brought to bear upon him by the relations of the deceased to so certify and save them the trouble and publicity of an inquest. It should be remembered, however, that although the certificate be accepted by the registrar, and interment take place, the coroner, if informed of the matter, may order the body to be exhumed for the purposes of inquest.

There are coroners who, on receipt of information of death from uncertain causes, may elect, on evidence obtained apart from the medical practitioner, to notify the registrar authorising the interment without holding an inquest. The law, however, states that, “except upon holding an inquest, no order, warrant, or other document for the burial of the body shall be given by the coroner” (50 and 51 Vict.).

The Coroners Act (50 and 51 Vict.) provides that, when a coroner is informed that the dead body is lying within his jurisdiction, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died a violent or unnatural death, or a sudden death, of which the cause is unknown, or died in prison, he shall summon a jury of not less than twelve, or more than twenty-three, men to inquire touching the death of such person aforesaid.

If the deceased were attended at his death, or during his last illness, by a legally qualified medical practitioner, the coroner may summon such practitioner as a witness. If the deceased were not so attended in his last illness, the coroner may summon any legally qualified medical practitioner in actual practice, in or near the place where the death happened, to give evidence as to the cause of death. In either case the coroner may require the medical witness to make a post-mortem examination of the body, with or without analysis of the contents of the stomach or intestines.

Should a statement on oath be made by any one before the coroner, that in his belief the death of the deceased was caused partly or entirely by the improper or negligent treatment of a medical practitioner, such medical practitioner shall not make or assist at the post-mortem examination.

If a majority of the jury are not satisfied with the medical evidence, they may require the coroner, in writing, to summon another legally qualified practitioner, named by them, to make a post-mortem examination, with or without analysis of the contents of the stomach and intestines, and give evidence as to the cause of death. A medical practitioner who fails to obey the summons of a coroner, issued in pursuance of the Coroners Act, is liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, unless he shows good and sufficient cause for not having so done. When evidence has been given before a coroner or magistrate, and the case is afterwards sent for trial, copies of the medical report and depositions are given to the judge and counsel, so that evidence given at the trial is compared in detail with that given before the coroner or magistrate. In view of this, it is imperative on the part of medical witnesses to carefully consider their evidence before giving it.

The object of a coroner‘s inquest is to ascertain whether the death of the person, over whose body the inquest is held, was due to natural causes or not.

The proceedings are not directed against any one, they do not constitute a trial, and hearsay evidence is admissible. The coroner and jury alone have the right to interrogate the witnesses. Counsel may be present in the interest of persons concerned with the inquest who may desire such assistance, but counsel may not cross-examine any witnesses, and may only question them by permission of and subject to the decision of the coroner.

Witnesses are examined on oath, their evidence is taken down, and should the case be transferred to a superior court, they are bound under a penalty to appear and give evidence. The coroner may adjourn an inquest for the purpose of obtaining further evidence, if he should deem it necessary.

Should the verdict of the jury charge a person with murder, the coroner issues a warrant for the arrest of the person, unless the person be already in custody. In the case of manslaughter the coroner may accept bail. According to the Act 4 Edw. I. c. 2, the coroner and jurors must view the body, this being absolutely necessary to give jurisdiction to him, and he has the power, within a convenient time after the death, to order a dead body to be disinterred for this purpose.

Order of Summons from the Coroner to a
Legally Qualified Medical Practitioner

Prosecution.—There was no Public Prosecutor in England until some years ago, when an Act was passed authorising the appointment of such an official, who should undertake the duty of prosecuting in certain and specific cases of public importance, and in districts where the appointment might be agreed upon. In ordinary circumstances it has usually been left to the person against whom a crime has been committed to prosecute the offender.

Magistrates‘ Court.—In the Magistrates‘ Court of Petty Sessions, the proceedings are for the purpose of investigating as to the culpability or non-culpability of a person accused of some criminal act, or criminal negligence.

In this Court the accused person must be present, as the inquiry is relative to his guilt or innocence. Witnesses in this Court may be examined and cross-examined by counsel. A magisterial investigation cannot take place if no arrest have been made. The magistrate may deal summarily with cases of simple assault and such-like of minor import, but when the case is of a more serious nature, and in suspected manslaughter or murder, the accused person is committed to a superior Court for trial, such as the Court of Quarter Sessions, the Assize Court or, in London, the Central Criminal Court, all witnesses, medical or lay, being bound over to appear and give evidence. The summons to the Assizes is called a subpœna, and all witnesses receiving the same, when accompanied with reasonable travelling expenses, are bound to obey it.

Assizes.—The Assizes comprise two Courts, the Crown Court and the Civil Court. A separate judge presides over each. In the former only cases of a criminal nature are tried; in the latter suits are tried between two parties. Medical practitioners may be called upon to give evidence in either Court, according to the nature of the case in which they are directly concerned.

Prior to a case being investigated by a judge and petty jury, it has to come before the grand jury. This jury decides whether the case is a proper one to proceed to trial.

The grand jury hear the evidence of such witnesses as they think fit, apart from counsel. Should the grand jury consider the case one for trial, they return a “true bill,” and it goes before the judge and petty jury; if not, they “cut the bill,” and the accused is discharged.

Medical witnesses may be called upon, when under subpœna, to give evidence before the grand jury.

The Crown Court of Assize consists of a judge and a sworn jury of twelve men, called the petty jury. The latter hear the evidence of witnesses, and are guided by the summing up of the judge. They deliver a verdict after consideration of the evidence by which the accused person is found guilty or not guilty. The judge, after receiving the verdict, allots such punishment as he considers just. In certain cases the prisoner when convicted may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

In the Assize Courts only barristers can plead; in the Magistrates‘ Courts of Petty Sessions, solicitors or barristers may plead.

In the Courts of Assize the witnesses are subject to the following routine of examination. First, Examination-in-chief: this the witness undergoes at the hands of the barrister who is pleading on behalf of the party by whom the witness is called. In this examination such questions are put to the witness as may elicit answers conveying to the judge and jury a clear account of all the witness knows with regard to the case. After the examination-in-chief, the counsel of the opposite side subjects the witness to cross-examination, in such a way as to shake the evidence given by the witness during his examination in chief in points which would weigh against the prospects of his client. It is during cross-examination that a medical witness may be subjected to questions which suggest answers capable of a different interpretation from those he had previously given. After cross-examination, the counsel for the party upon whose side the witness appears subjects the latter to re-examination, if he consider it necessary, during which he endeavours to clear up any doubtful points in the evidence given by the witness during cross-examination, with the purpose of eliciting an explanation of their meaning.

The judge and members of the jury may put such questions to the witness as they may consider necessary.

The same method of procedure applies to the higher Courts.