It’s Monday morning and another day in a department which specialises in inquest law. A difficult and challenging week lies ahead.

Inquest law in itself presents numerous challenges; from attending harrowing inquests for weeks on end, to providing consistent support and hope for families who feel lost and alone.  It is certainly not a job for the faint hearted. 

The intricate and elusive world of the Coroner’s Court is not something most people will ever be acquainted with. However, tragically, tens of thousands of families each year find themselves thrown into its midst, often with very little guidance or support.

In the Inquest Law department, we spend much our time challenging Coroners and the other Interested Persons in the inquest process. This may be NHS Trusts, Prisons, the Police or even the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Those Public Authorities are given the benefit of legal representation at inquests at the tax payer’s expense with no questions asked. 

On the other hand, we spend a considerable amount of time fighting the Legal Aid Agency so that our clients can receive funding to be represented by us. ‘Fat Cat Lawyers’ draining public resources, many shout. 

Inquests usually consist of: the Coroner, the bereaved family, and one or two other Interested Persons, sometimes more. This is a legal process which is alien to most lawyers, let alone lay persons. Families are expected to know what the engagement of Article 2 (the right to life enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights) would mean for the inquest; what ‘disclosure’ is and that they are entitled to it in most cases; that they have a say in which witnesses the Coroner could call to the inquest and the issues they should address. All of this while coping with the loss of someone they love, often in traumatic circumstances. Sounds like a totally reasonable expectation, no?

Joy Hibbins, from the charity Suicide Crisis, wrote in the Huffington Post recently that bereaved families need legal support at inquests. She is right, but as she pointed out, it is far from normal for families to be represented. All too often, bereaved and emotional family members are expected to attend court and navigate their way blindly through the inquest process. 

But what happens when bereaved families DO approach lawyers for assistance?  Problem solved? Unfortunately, not. After being lucky enough to discover that they are entitled to a lawyer at an inquest, families must now think about funding this representation.  Enter: The Legal Aid Agency. 

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) are responsible for allocating public funding in the legal system. Their role is to assist those who could not usually afford the assistance of a lawyer yet are legally entitled to representation, or at least, that is the idea. Many families would not be able to afford lawyers to represent them at their loved one’s inquest without the LAA’s help. 

Inquests are covered by a special pot of money under the LAA’s ‘Exceptional Case Funding’ (ECF) Scheme. Families must satisfy a strict “Means and Merits” test before funding is granted. Before ECF funding is applied for, solicitors must obtain Legal Help funding, which must also satisfy the “Means and Merits” tests.  Families are often denied this funding. Often their means are too high or the inquest is not at a stage in which the Merits test can be satisfied.

Whereas public bodies automatically receive experienced legal representation, families must tackle the hurdle of obtaining funding before they can think about the inquest process. The alternatives are bleak. Families can of course pay privately for a lawyer. However, why should families who have been thrust, unexpectedly, into the inquest process, be required to pay for representation at all? Being involved in the inquest of a lost loved one is not a matter of choice.  

Of course there is the option of lawyers working pro bono (for free) on these matters, and many solicitors and barristers do conduct great work for free, however the time and attention working with bereaved families and Coroner’s courts requires is extensive. In any event, why should lawyers be expected to work for free to mop up the deficiencies in the Governments Public Funding Scheme?

It is no wonder many families cry “cover up” and wonder whether they can ever truly obtain justice following their loved one’s death.  Each element of the inquest process is run by the government: the Coroner, the Interested Persons, the family’s funding scheme. If the funding scheme designed to support families in inquest is not fit for purpose and prevents them from obtaining legal representation, how can anyone have confidence in the inquest process itself?

Legal Aid is becoming ever more scarce and obtaining funding for bereaved families is not easy. Bereaved families need representation at inquests, cases such as Hillsborough prove just that. Have the government truly learned from such tragedies? Perhaps the jury is still out. However, what is clear is that bereaved families require support and experienced representation at inquests, something which at present, is shockingly out of reach. 

It is time for the lessons of the Hillsborough disaster to be learned and for proper levels of funding to be made available to those families who are involved in the Inquest process.