Key takeaways
Updated guidance puts emphasis on rights of Interested Persons
Bench Book clarifies how IP status should operate in practice.
Individual employees now more likely to be offered IP status
Involvement alone, not culpability, can trigger independent rights.
Organisations must manage conflicts and communication carefully
Prompt support and guidance needed as more individuals become IPs.
Inquests are inquisitorial investigations led by a Coroner to determine who the deceased was, and how, when and where they came by their death. There are no 'parties' to proceedings, as the process is not adversarial. Instead, those with a proper interest in the investigation are granted defined participatory rights. These individuals or organisations are known as Interested Persons (IPs).
Under section 47 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, an IP may include: a spouse, civil partner or close relative of the deceased; a personal representative; an insurer; a person who may have caused or contributed to the death; an employer; a healthcare provider; a government department; or any other person whom the coroner considers to have a sufficient interest in the investigation.
IP status carries important procedural rights. IPs are entitled to disclosure of relevant evidence, including witness statements and expert reports. They may ask questions of witnesses at a hearing, usually through legal representatives, and make submissions on scope, evidence, witness and conclusions.
Notably, the 2025 Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench (or more commonly known as the 'Bench Book') has placed a renewed and clearer emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of Interested Persons. While the statutory definition has not changed, the guidance provides important clarification on how IP status should operate in practice.
First, the guidance stresses that family members should not be treated as a single collective entity. Each qualifying relative has separate and distinct rights as an IP. Legal representatives are expected to identify precisely whom they represent rather than referring generically to 'the family'.
Secondly, and of particular importance to organisations, the updated guidance clarifies that where an organisation is granted IP status because of the acts or omissions of an employee, that employee will usually be entitled to IP status in their own right. There is no requirement for the act or omission to be a culpable one; it is the mere fact of the involvement in death which triggers the right to be an IP. Crucially, this entitlement does not depend on the existence of a conflict of interest between the organisation and the individual.
This has significant practical implications and means that more individuals will be offered IP status during coronial proceedings. Organisations must ensure that those who have been afforded IP status are informed promptly of their right to independent representation. Organisations and legal practitioners must also give careful consideration as to whether a conflict arises, and whether the individual can remain under the organisation’s umbrella if they do not wish to invoke their right. Understandably, this will be a daunting prospect for employees and will need to be managed carefully by organisations to ensure employees are both adequately informed of their rights, and supported appropriately.
In summary, the 2025 guidance therefore reinforces a shift towards recognising the autonomy and procedural rights of individuals within the coronial process, strengthening fairness and clarity in inquest proceedings.
