« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Section 1: Introduction
Remit
1.1 The Review has the following remit:
To review the operation of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiries (Scotland) Act 1976, which governs the system of judicial investigation of sudden or unexplained deaths in Scotland, so as to ensure that Scotland has an effective and practical system of public inquiry into deaths which is fit for the 21 st century.
1.2 Since this Review relates to the system of judicial investigation, it is concerned with the work of the procurator fiscal only in so far as a judicial investigation is or may be required.
Purpose of the report on consultation
1.3 The purpose of this document is to report on the submissions made in response to the "Review of Fatal Accident Inquiry Legislation: a consultation paper", published on 20 November 2008.
1.4 The Review received comments from a number of individuals and interest groups and sought comments from others with a view to identifying particular issues or concerns which might be covered in the process of the consultation. The issues identified were discussed under the following topic in the consultation paper were:
- General
- The decision that a fatal accident inquiry ( FAI) should be held
- Holding an FAI
- Evidence and procedure
- Determinations
Responses
1.5 Eight-four responses were received from a wide range of respondents, seventy-nine of which responded to some or all of the questions set out in the consultation paper. The responses to the questions have been collated, analysed and considered. Most of these were received after the formal deadline of 20 February 2009, but those received within a month of that date have been considered by the Review. The respondents who agreed to their name being made public are listed in the Appendix. The respondents broadly come under the following headings:
- The judiciary
- The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service ( COPFS)
- Lawyers
- Expert witnesses
- The Scottish Legal Aid Board ( SLAB)
- Investigators (police, the Health and Safety Executive ( HSE) and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch)
- Relatives of the deceased
- Other interested parties (the Scottish Prison Service, Scottish Health Service bodies, local authorities and medical and health practitioner groups)
- Others (academics, charities, unions, Parliamentarians, the UK Government and other bodies and interest groups)
1.6 Many of the respondents did not use, or only partly used, the pro-forma that was provided. However, seventy-nine answered some or all of the questions posed. At times respondents did not give a clear indication of whether they agreed with the question or not. Instead, they discussed the matter, sometimes at considerable length, weighing up arguments or differing perspectives.
1.7 Five respondents who did not directly answer the questions posed, so their responses have not been included in the analysis of responses to the questions, but their comments on the current system and suggestions for change have been considered by the Review.
1.8 In addition to their responses to the questions, some provided additional comments and documents. This included some relatives who provided details of their experience of the fatal accident inquiry system. This additional information has not been included in the analysis of responses to the questions, but has likewise been considered by the Review.
1.9 By the very nature of the consultation exercise, the numbers of respondents who chose to comment on individual questions varied. On average, sixty-three respondents provided an opinion on individual questions; the lowest number of views on any one question was forty-three and the highest was seventy-three.
1.10 The nature of submissions varied widely: a small number of respondents provided just one word responses to a question, whereas the majority submitted detailed comments.
1.11 Consultation exercises like this are not numerically representative, but aim to elicit views and experiences of a wide range of stakeholders. To interpret the proportion of responses in agreement or disagreement could be misleading, so the results will not be presented in this report in percentage form.
1.12 Four respondents asked for their responses to be handled in confidence. This report includes quotations from the some respondents, but merely for the purpose of illustrating the diversity of views. Before reporting on responses to questions, a summary of the main points in relation to that question is provided.
« Previous | Contents | Next »