The preliminary proceedings in criminal cases in England, Ireland, and Scotland, compared

Abstract

Readers of newspapers who favour the law intelligence with a cursory glance, will occasionally see the report of an application to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus to bring before a coroner's inquest a person already in custody for a supposed crime in connexion with the death, into the cause of which the coroner is investigating. Such applications reveal a struggle which has been going on now for some years between two different methods of conducting the preliminary investigation into crime. On the part of the coroner, it may be said, indeed, to be a struggle for existence. It is contended, on the one hand, that two independent investigations into the same matter are unnecessary, and that when once a person has been arrested for the crime, and the magistrates have committed him for trial, the object of the coroner's inquest ceases. It is contended, on the other hand, that the coroner is a judicial officer of very ancient authority, that his jurisdiction has been most beneficially exercised, and that by means of his tribunal crimes which would otherwise be concealed or be compromised, are dragged into light. It is urged, too, that as the coroner himself is selected by the people, and the jury are drawn from among the people, the most impartial and popular tribunal is thereby secured.