Report comment

The sheer hypocrisy and circular reasoning is breathtaking. Having concluded that it would be too expensive to provide representation for families, it moves on to a section headed "Making sure inquests remain inquisitorial":

"One option we have considered but rejected was the idea of “delawyering”, in other words reducing the number of lawyers who attend inquests, in particular those who represent the government and other public bodies. ...

... There are, however, difficulties in reducing the number of lawyers that act for public bodies. It must be right that, for example, police or prison officers have representation at inquests where there is the potential for their job to be at risk; organisations representing the interests of families accept this. Further, the Civil Service Management has a commitment to provide staff called as a witness at an inquest with legal representation. ...

... We have concluded that there is little that we can do to reduce the number of lawyers who represent public bodies at inquests but we will continue to keep this issue under review"

So public bodies and those employed by the state need representation, families can go whistle. Got it.