Epsom - March 2006
Over the next few minutes, I propose to address a number of matters
First, I am sure that I speak for all of us when we extend to all members of the Collinson family as well as to the many friends of James heartfelt condolences on their loss. I have no doubt that it has been a very difficult 4 years both for them and for the Army and I only hope that, without in any way forgetting James, it will be possible for all to move forward and, wherever possible, to build upon the experience without in any way diminishing the memory of James.
Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules 1984 says that a coroner who believes that action should be taken to prevent the recurrence of fatalities similar to that in respect of which the inquest is being held may announce at the inquest that he is reporting the matter in writing to the person or authority who may have power to take such action and he may report the matter accordingly. Although I do realise that many procedures have been changed or modified since James died, I can confirm that I will be writing to the SoS identifying my concerns on a number of issues, many of which have been set out in the summing up I gave to the jury. These include possible improvements in systems for the issue of weapons - I suggested that a relatively simple computer system working with bar code readers should reduce inaccuracies in the paperwork - as well as the appropriate response to such an emergency. In addition, as I refer below, because of the limited constraints of an inquest, there has to be some way of resolving the unease that there seems to be abroad about Deepcut.
Inquests can address only limited things. The House of Lords case of Middleton placed an additional duty on coroners. This duty is the duty that falls to the State to carry out a meaningful inquiry under the interpretation of Article 2 ECHR. Yet coroners are individual office holders, are not part of any national court system and are not normally regarded as “the State”. We are resourced entirely by our individual relevant councils (in my case Surrey County Council) and by the local police forces who provide, in the main, the coroner’s officers.
We receive no special training nor are there any additional resources (whether human or financial) made available for this sort of inquiry. Further, although this duty may fall to us, there is no change in the statutory basis for coroners allowing them to take on such inquiries; we can still only look at an individual death in the limited circumstances in which it appears to have arisen. We may not broaden it into a generic inquiry. It was for this reason that I had to draw the terms of reference and limit them as I did. As this inquest has repeatedly been told, the evidence that was adduced had to be relevant to the limited remit of the inquest into that single death. It has to remain “anchored” in the circumstances of that death and cannot range over other matters, however interesting they might be.
Nicholas Blake QC is also carrying through an inquiry on behalf of the SoS for Defence, covering not just this death but the other three earlier deaths at Deepcut. I understand that he is likely to report soon. I have no knowledge of his thinking nor of any of his conclusions; I suppose that, in this disconnected world, the conclusions that he reaches could well be at variance with the conclusions of this inquest and this jury.
I am sure that many of us have considerable respect for our armed forces and the tasks required of them and they deserve that these matters be addressed thoroughly and independently so that rumour and speculation can be met head on. It follows that we should encourage them to recruit, support and train the very best candidates and provide for their various needs. Those of us who saw the barracks at Deepcut have a better understanding of what it is all about, including the size and diversity of the place as well as the apparent enthusiasm of many of the recruits. James was one such recruit and by all accounts he was a keen and good soldier.
Yet many of the matters or problems of which we have heard obliquely do need further examination or at least balanced public exposure. Thus my own personal view - and I emphasise that it is a personal view - is that the MoD should take whatever steps are necessary to restore public confidence in the recruitment and training of young soldiers whether at Deepcut or elsewhere. I personally believe that they should have nothing to fear from an inquiry held in public (if that is what is necessary) where the various issues (outside the direct causation of the deaths of James and others) can be explored in greater depth and where the MoD can demonstrate, as the jury, counsel and I had demonstrated to us in a very limited way on the Friday of the first week of this inquest, that there really is a lot of good in the system - it is not all bad, by any means - and that there are some who are desperately trying to preserve the good and build on it. I will be writing to the SoS for Defence accordingly.
I want to thank the jury who less than 3 weeks ago had no experience either of a coroner’s court or of military life and procedure. Thank you for the time and dedication you have given to these matters. My thanks also to Counsel and Solicitors - it has not been an easy case to present and I take heart by the dedication that you have all shown and the clear way in which you have addressed your duties.
For the various witnesses the occasion cannot have been easy. It must have been painful to be questioned closely about things that occurred 4 years ago. This all the more so when it concerns potential transgressions of rules and regulations. Inquests do rely upon evidence from witnesses who can be questioned and tested for conclusions to be drawn - not on rumour and speculation. Not only were we often asking them to focus on matters that they may have tried to forget but on occasion their very truthfulness was being challenged.
I also thank the Surrey Police for their assistance in mounting this case which I know has been resource extensive. I acknowledge the help given by the ladies who have compiled the LiveNote transcripts and to all the different teams from Surrey County Council who made the necessary arrangements for the use of this court and additional facilities. Finally, last but not least to my own dedicated officers who have kept the case running smoothly.
MJCB (HMC) - March 2006
