Access to the process

, 5, 35, 155–159, 181–184

Accountability

, 1, 30, 91

inquest system

, 102, 139–143

legitimacy

, 124

potential gap

, 9–10

principles

, 4–5

punishment

, 76

State actions

, 142

Administrative duty/obligation

, 13–14, 17

Adversarial

, 24

apology

, 75

criminal court system

, 142

defined

, 128

fair and effective participation

, 60–61

legal representation, families

, 170–171

Amin (R. (on the application of Amin (Imtiaz)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department)

, 11–12, 26–27

Apology

, 75, 89–90, 195–196

Article 2

compliant

, 5–6

European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)

, 9, 10–22

evolution

, 3

inquests

, 5–6, 10, 36, 153, 201

investigations

, 3, 25–41

obligations

, 29–30, 115

requirements

, 23

violation

, 27, 89–90

Association of Chief Police Officers

, 12–14

Bias

, 66

fairness

, 121

outcomes

, 68

perceptions

, 132–133

Civil claim

, 74

Closure

, 84–85, 92, 196

Compensation

, 1–2, 25

apology

, 72

civil case

, 74–75

financial

, 89–90

Complicated grief

, 81–82, 83–84, 92–93, 196

Coroner

, 5, 23–24

inquests

, 32–33

investigations

, 31–32

Rules

, 24

Coronial system

, 23–24, 24–25, 137, 164

Cross-examination

, 34–35, 106, 167–168

Culpability

, 3–4, 22, 26, 91, 141

Custodial institutions

, 32–33, 51, 63, 190

Delays

, 31–32

disclosure

, 176

families

, 41

inquest process

, 196

participants

, 92

Detention

, 16, 63, 144

Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)

, 186

Disclosure

Article 2

, 175

coroner

, 38

delays

, 39

police witness statements

, 40

preinquest

, 40

Disproportionality

, 137–138

Duty of care

, 4–5, 13, 15, 91, 136

Effective participation

, 153–154

access to documents

, 174–178

equity

, 162–163

fair treatment

, 161

legal representation

, 163–174

respectful treatment

, 160–161

right to participate

, 154–159

Enhanced procedural duty/obligation

, 9–10, 18, 21, 26–29

Equality of arms

, 161, 162

Equity

Article 2

, 36

and independence

, 147–148

legal representation

, 162–163

parties

, 147–148

European Convention on Human Rights

, 10–22

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

, 12–15, 26–27, 201

Evidence

access to documents

, 37, 167

CCTV

, 107, 110

empirical

, 4–5

forensic

, 112–113

Home Affairs Committee (HAC)

, 24

inquest

, 62–63

scrutinising

, 107

State failures

, 9–10

Exceptional Case Funding (ECF)

, 192–193

Fairness

, 39

and equity

, 191

family perception

, 162–163

perceived

, 108–109

procedural

, 42, 145–148

process

, 119–122

Fair treatment

, 124–125, 161

Family Liaison Officer (FLOs)

, 156, 169

Family participation benefits

accountability

, 139–143

increased perceptions

, 145–148

procedural fairness

, 145–148

public confidence

, 143–145

Formality

, 36, 159

Four component model

, 147–148

Four-component theory

, 122

Grief narrative

, 85–86

Grief process

bereavement

, 84–88

grief theory

, 81–84

positive light

, 86–88

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

, 16

Human Rights Act (HRA)

, 12–13, 69, 191–192

Independence

, 106

legitimacy

, 145

system

, 130–133

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPPC)

, 50

Influence the outcome

, 5

families

, 184–187

opportunity

, 60

right to

, 63–69

Influence the process

, 59–60, 91–92, 184–185

Inquest system

, 2

access to documents

, 37–41

accountability

, 139–143

Article 2

, 5–6, 10, 25–41

article 2 investigations

, 25–41

bereavement

, 84–85

complex

, 5–6

contentious

, 48

custody

, 47, 165

England and Wales

, 22

enhanced procedural duty

, 27–29

family involvement

, 31–33

family participation

, 33–41

impact

, 130–137

legal representation

, 36, 162

legitimacy

, 124–128

outcomes

, 101

participating

, 3–4

purpose

, 101–105

reforms

, 23–25

representation funding

, 36–37

right to influence

, 63–64

right to participate

, 61

State response

, 114–115

state to account holding

, 29–30

Inquisitorial

, 36

adversarial

, 170–171

coroner

, 129

decision-making processes

, 128

Instrumental impact

, 101–111

Interested party

, 32, 69, 155, 181–182

Interpretative Phenomenological Approach (IPA)

, 47–49

Intrinsic impact

, 118, 130–137, 197

Investigations

, 1, 3, 9, 19–21, 25–41, 65, 66–67, 72, 102, 130–131, 133, 140, 143, 184, 185

Investigatory bodies

, 55, 65–67, 110, 117–118, 132–133, 140, 146, 154, 175, 181–182, 185, 198, 200

Jamieson (R. v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe Ex p. Jamieson)

, 20

Jordan v United Kingdom

, 18, 29, 30, 32–33, 35, 40–41, 115, 140

Legal Aid

, 22, 37, 115–117, 155–156, 171, 173–174, 182, 191––193, 199

Legal Aid Agency (LAA)

, 115–116

Legal representation

, 163–174

adversarial

, 170–171

asking questions

, 167–169

assess evidence

, 167

bereaved families

, 189–193

challenges

, 170–174

early access

, 164–165

funding

, 173–174

getting access to documents

, 166–167

inquest and custody processes

, 165

legally complex

, 165–166

specialist

, 171–173

support

, 169–170

Legitimacy

, 1, 2–3, 5, 101–111, 115–117, 139, 145–148, 194, 196–198, 200, 202–203, 101

coroner

, 128–130

fairness

, 119–122

fair process

, 135–136

independence

, 130–133

intrinsic impact

, 130–137

intrinsic value

, 124–128

procedural justice

, 124–130

process

, 136–137

State actions

, 123

transparent process

, 133–135

trust

, 137

Letts (R (Joanna Letts) v Lord Chancellor)

, 3, 22, 35, 59, 90–92, 116, 140, 142, 196, 202

Liability

, 9–10, 21, 30, 75, 103, 113, 142–143

Managing expectations

, 192–193

McCann v United Kingdom

, 11–12, 18, 29, 140

Middleton (R. (on the application of Middleton) v HM Coroner for Western Somerset)

, 27–29, 115, 140

Moral norms

, 149

Next of kin

, 25, 31–33, 40, 81, 117, 153–158, 173–174, 181–182, 192

Normative values for justice

, 119

Operational duty/obligation

, 13, 14–15, 18

Osman v United Kingdom

, 14, 15

Participation

, 1, 10, 31, 33–35, 59–61, 81, 86, 92–93, 101, 105–111, 119–122, 130–137, 139–140, 145, 148, 154–159, 181, 194, 202, 203

deaths in custody

, 62–63

families

, 61

grief process

, 92–93

legitimate interests of families

, 89–92

Police

, 5, 36, 63, 87, 90, 94–95, 103, 106, 142, 162, 171, 185, 198

Positional Asphyxia

, 140–142

Post-mortem

, 31–33

Prevention of Future Deaths (Reports)

, 61

Prison

, 36, 62–63, 73–74, 93, 95, 119, 125–127, 136, 202

Prisons and Probation Ombudsman

, 40, 50

Procedural duty/obligation

, 17–18, 26–29, 34, 116

Procedural Fairness

, 42, 59–60, 124–125, 139, 145–148, 160

Procedural Justice Theory

, 4–5, 119, 124, 137–138, 147–148, 188–189, 197, 198, 202–203

Public confidence

, 2, 26, 35, 136, 139, 143–145

Public interest

, 148

Qualitative interviews

, 3, 46

Qualitative research

, 45, 54

Quality of decision-making

, 115, 122, 124–125, 128, 146, 187

Redress

, 1–2, 59, 74, 77–80, 89–90, 195–196

Respectful treatment

, 1, 160–161

Scope of inquest

, 30, 73, 102–103, 165, 168–169, 189–190

Semi-structured interviews

, 48–49, 52

Social Contract

, 123

State bodies

, 102, 117–118, 133, 136–137, 145–148, 169, 171, 188–189

State duty of care

, 136

State-initiated

, 9–10, 17–18, 22, 25–26

Stigma

, 82, 83–84, 88, 93–95

Substantive duty/obligation

, 11–12, 14, 17–18

Terminology

, 159, 165, 190

Transparency

, 125–126, 131, 136–137, 145–148

Trust

, 2, 60, 92, 119, 122, 125–126, 134–135, 137, 147–148, 188–189, 200, 203–204

Truth

apology

, 75

civil case

, 74–75

failings identification

, 75–79

public record

, 77–79

punishment

, 75–79

right

, 72–73

verdicts

, 73–74

Use of force

, 11–13, 18, 30–31, 94–95

Voice of the deceased

, 3–4, 87, 93, 154, 154, 200