Key takeaways
Parallel investigations create real risks for fairness and completeness
They can prevent witnesses from answering questions, delay disclosure, and risk fragmented or conflicting findings emerging.
Organisations and staff face significant practical and emotional burden
Overlapping investigations can result in repeated requests for interviews, withheld disclosure, uncertainty about key evidence and considerable pressure on frontline staff.
Coroners must balance prompt progress with avoiding prejudice
Postponements should be regularly reviewed, time limited, and communicated transparently to Interested Persons - ensuring fairness to families without compromising the integrity of the process.
Balancing two jurisdictions: why inquests pause for criminal proceedings
The relationship between inquests and parallel criminal and/or regulatory inquiries is a long standing and carefully balanced feature of the coronial system. While the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 aims to ensure that deaths are investigated promptly, it also recognises that criminal proceedings must take precedence. Postponing an inquest where a criminal investigation is underway is therefore not simply a matter of prudence; in some circumstances, it is a legal requirement. In others, it becomes an exercise of judicial discretion, guided by fairness, proportionality, and the interests of justice.
Under Schedule 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a Coroner must suspend (postpone) an investigation if certain circumstances arise. The mandatory suspension provisions are designed to avoid prejudicing criminal proceedings, and to ensure that the Coroner does not investigate matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of a criminal court.
The Coroner’s discretion is also preserved within the same Schedule (under Schedule 1, paragraph 5) allowing a Coroner to pause an inquest even where the mandatory grounds are not triggered but where doing so is necessary to avoid interference with criminal inquiries or to ensure an effective fact finding process.
Together, these mandatory and discretionary postponements form a two tier system: one grounded in strict statutory requirement, the other informed by judicial judgement.
When is suspension Is mandatory/discretionary?
A Coroner is required to suspend an investigation where:
A person has been charged with a homicide-related offence involving the death
A person is charged with an offence that is 'likely to be relevant' to the death
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directs the Coroner to suspend.
This discretionary power is typically exercised where:
The inquest risks prejudicing criminal investigations
Running the inquest in parallel would be inefficient or duplicative
The police require clarity or time to determine whether charges are appropriate
Article 2 considerations arise
If the death may engage the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Coroner must ensure an effective, independent investigation. A police investigation may form part of that required scrutiny.
The Chief Coroner’s Guidance emphasises the importance of progressing inquests without unnecessary delay. Postponements, whether mandatory or discretionary, should not be open ended. Coroners are encouraged to:
Seek regular updates from the police
Set review dates
Maintain communication with interested persons, and
Resume inquests promptly when the reasons for postponement fall away.
Coroners must balance the demands of the criminal process with their own duty to investigate deaths 'as soon as practicable'.
Implications for organisations
Overlapping proceedings can create significant challenges for Interested Persons (IPs). Disclosure may be withheld by the Coroner’s Office while criminal investigations are active, leaving organisations uncertain about what evidence exists or what material is yet to be disclosed.
Expert reports may also progress in one jurisdiction without clarity as to whether the authors have seen all relevant material, given the limitations on disclosure.
For organisations, and particularly frontline staff, the overlap between inquest, criminal and regulatory processes can lead to repeated requests for statements, interviews and meetings. This duplication can be confusing, time consuming and demoralising, increasing the risk of inconsistent accounts as time passes.
Organisations may also need to conduct internal investigations, respond to police enquiries and prepare evidence relevant to potential Regulation 28 (Prevention of Future Deaths) considerations. This adds to the operational burden and heightens pressure on staff.
Proceeding prematurely can also prevent the Coroner from obtaining the best evidence. Where the possibility of criminal proceedings remains live, witnesses may feel unable to answer questions fully and may rely instead on their right under Rule 22 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013 not to answer questions that could potentially incriminate them. In practice, this can lead to hesitant or incomplete evidence, leaving the Coroner without the clarity they need and families without the meaningful answers they deserve.
Finally, allowing an inquest to proceed while criminal or regulatory investigations are ongoing can create an unintended overlap of jurisdictions. This may mean that regulators, including the CQC, become aware of evidence presented in the inquest that is relevant to their own inquiries. While entirely legitimate, this overlap can increase the organisational burden and broaden the range of issues that must be managed across multiple processes.
Conclusion
Postponing an inquest while criminal or regulatory investigations remain ongoing is not simply procedural caution - it is often essential to protecting the integrity of the fact finding process. The statutory framework recognises this balance, ensuring that inquests progress promptly where appropriate, but pause when necessary to avoid prejudice. For organisations and staff navigating multiple overlapping processes, a measured and legally informed approach to postponement can make a meaningful difference to fairness, clarity and outcome.
If you are unsure how these principles apply in a particular case, our team is available to provide guidance.
