Key takeaways
The coroner’s Schedule 5 powers are wide ranging and enforceable across England and Wales
They extend to compelling attendance, documents, and written evidence, with criminal sanctions (under Schedule 6) for non compliance.
Timescales are whatever the coroner considers 'reasonable' - and that can mean very short notice
With no statutory minimum period, clinicians and organisations may face compressed deadlines and significant operational pressure.
There is scope to challenge a notice - but the coroner decides
Recipients can argue that compliance is impossible or unreasonable, though it remains for the coroner to vary or revoke the notice.
Coroners have wide statutory powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence. These powers are often talked about loosely, but less often understood properly – particularly when it comes to timescales, reasonableness, and the scope for push back.
Given the pressures on clinical time and the demands of the inquest process, understanding the limits and practical realities of the coroner’s powers matters.
This article focuses on the power contained in Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and what it means in practice.
What is the coroner’s power to compel evidence?
Under Schedule 5, paragraph 1, a senior coroner may issue a statutory notice requiring a person to:
Attend at a specified time and place to give evidence at an inquest;
Produce documents in their custody or control that are relevant to the inquest; or
Produce other items for inspection, examination or testing.
The power extends not only to attendance at court, but also to the provision of written evidence, often by way of a witness statement, during the investigative phase.
The power is not confined to the coroner’s own area – a notice is enforceable anywhere in England and Wales.
The consequences of non attendance
This is not a power that can be ignored.
A Schedule 5 notice must explain the consequences of non compliance, which include potential criminal sanctions under Schedule 6. In short, failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, may expose the recipient to enforcement action by the court.
For organisations and professionals alike, this raises clear reputational and legal risk – particularly where non attendance could be portrayed as obstructive or dismissive of the inquest process.
The timescale problem: 'such period as the coroner thinks reasonable'
One of the most striking features of Schedule 5 is what it doesn’t say.
Where a coroner requires written evidence or material to be produced, the statute provides that this must be done 'within such period as the senior coroner thinks reasonable.'
There is no prescribed minimum notice period.
This is a sharp contrast with the Civil Procedure Rules, where CPR 34.5 provides that a witness summons is only binding if served at least seven days before the date of attendance.
In the coronial jurisdiction, no equivalent safeguard exists.
Nor is there any assistance in the Chief Coroner’s Law Sheets or the January 2025 Coroners’ Bench Book as to what 'reasonableness' means in this context. The legislation deliberately leaves that assessment to the coroner’s discretion.
In practice, this can result in:
short notice requests for attendance
compressed timelines for witness statements
significant pressure on clinicians with competing operational responsibilities
The ability to push back
Schedule 5 does provide a mechanism to challenge a notice.
Under paragraph 1(4), a recipient may make a claim that:
They are unable to comply with the notice; or
It is not reasonable in all the circumstances to require compliance in the terms set out.
Importantly, however, that claim is determined by the senior coroner. The coroner may revoke or vary the notice – but is not obliged to do so.
When deciding whether compliance is reasonable, the coroner must consider the public interest in the information being obtained, including its likely importance to the inquest.
In other words, this is not a negotiation between equals. It is a request for forbearance, and the coroner remains the final arbiter.
What if the coroner gets it wrong?
The absence of statutory guidance and fixed timescales does not leave recipients without protection. Even where a coroner refuses to vary or revoke a Schedule 5 notice, including where the recipient has explained that the request is unreasonable or impossible to meet, that decision is not immune from scrutiny.
In appropriate cases, the coroner’s decision may be challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review. Judicial review is not a routine remedy, nor should it be framed as such, but it remains an essential constitutional safeguard where public powers are exercised disproportionately or unfairly. The availability of this remedy ensures that coroners remain accountable for the rationality and lawfulness of their decisions, particularly where the impact on organisations, clinicians or the fairness of the inquest process is significant.
Importantly, the prospect of judicial review often provides a valuable final opportunity for resolution before formal proceedings become necessary. A carefully framed letter to the coroner, setting out the statutory basis for concern, explaining why the notice is unreasonable in all the circumstances, and confirming that judicial review is being considered, can create the space for reconsideration. Most coroners will wish to avoid the delay, cost, and publicity associated with a High Court challenge, and will take such correspondence seriously. For many organisations, this pre‑action stage is where issues are most effectively resolved.
While judicial review should only be pursued where genuinely justified, its existence is an important reminder that the coroner’s powers, though wide, are not unfettered. Where those powers are exercised in a way that places unrealistic demands on individuals, undermines fairness, or goes beyond what the statutory framework requires, challenge is not only possible, it may be necessary to protect the integrity of the inquest.
Practical takeaways for organisations and witnesses
A Schedule 5 notice should never be treated as a mere invitation, but nor should it be accepted without thought. When a coroner exercises this power, it is always worth stepping back to consider precisely what is being required - whether attendance, documents, written evidence, or a combination of all three - and whether the timescale is realistic in light of operational pressures and clinical availability.
Where compliance is genuinely difficult, early engagement with the coroner is almost always preferable to silence. A carefully reasoned response, focused on proportionality and the practical demands of the service rather than convenience, often opens the door to a more workable arrangement.
And while coroners are independent judicial office holders, their decisions are not beyond scrutiny. Understanding both the scope of their powers and the mechanisms available to challenge them, where necessary, is essential to navigating the modern inquest landscape with confidence and fairness.
