Using narrative to construct accountability in cases of death after police contact
| Author | David Baker |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865818767227 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Using narrative to construct
Criminology
2019, Vol. 52(1) 60–75
!
accountability in cases of
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
death after police contact
DOI: 10.1177/0004865818767227
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
David Baker
Coventry University, UK
Abstract
This paper examines the use of narrative verdicts in the coronial system in England and Wales
to record findings in cases of death after police contact. It uses a dataset of 68 verdicts into
such cases in the period 2004–2015. The paper considers how regulation is constructed in a
way that makes complex cases comprehensible through narrative. The construction of these
narratives is affected by legal structures, institutional structures, but also the structures
imposed by narrative convention. The paper argues that the relationships between these
structures affect what type of narrative is constructed in the aftermath of a death after police
contact. It further suggests that devices within narratives enable the construction of a com-
prehensible narrative verdict in such cases.
Keywords
Accountability, coroners’ courts, deaths, narrative, police
Deaths after police contact in England and Wales
Between 2004 and 2015 a total of 1539 people died after contact with the police in
England and Wales (IPCC, 2016). The term ‘death after police contact’ (DAPC) used
throughout this paper adopts criteria from the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) in regard to ‘deaths during or following police contact’ from
their annual statistical analyses (see, e.g. IPCC, 2016). Cases of DAPC in England
and Wales are typically investigated by two independent organisations, the coronial
Corresponding author:
David Baker, School of Psychological, Social and Behavioural Sciences, Coventry University, 1 Priory St, Coventry,
West Midlands, UK.
Email: d.baker@coventry.ac.uk
Baker
61
system and the IPCC. This paper examines the processes and practices of the coronial
system as it constructs accountability in cases of DAPC. It discusses how narrative
structures, conventions and devices both enable and constrain the construction of ver-
dicts in the coronial system, and consequently affect how accountability is constructed
in cases of DAPC in England and Wales.
The capacity of the state and society to hold police to account in cases of DAPC is
seen to be a touchstone for legitimate, transparent and consensual policing in England
and Wales (Savage, 2013; Smith, 2009). Deaths after police contact are significant
because the state bears unique responsibility for the welfare of citizens in their care,
and such deaths may be viewed with suspicion by the public, hence the relevance of the
coronial system in providing regulation in such cases (Levine, 1999; Shaw & Coles,
2007). Such cases are complex due to multi-causality in relation to the death and because
more than one emergency service tends to have had contact with the deceased (see, e.g.
Baker, 2016a; Casale, Corfe, & Lewis, 2013; IPCC, 2016). The paper sheds light on both
coronial practices and the way in which narrative is used to record verdicts in cases of
DAPC. As such, it represents an original contribution to criminological research into
how narrative affects the construction of accountability in such cases.
Coronial regulation of deaths after police contact
Deaths after police contact in England and Wales are typically investigated in the
coronial system (Parliament, 2009). Cases are usually heard in public, before juries, in
a forum that is inquisitorial as distinct to adversarial (Matthews, 2014). A coroner’s
inquest is held to be a fact-finding exercise that may not ascribe guilt or liability.
Coronial inquests have manifold purposes, two of which are to investigate suspicious
deaths in a public forum, and to learn lessons which may enable the prevention of future
deaths (Luce, 2003). The state has made numerous official pronouncements underlining
how important lesson learning is in reducing the number of deaths after police contact
(see, e.g. Fulton, 2008; House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs (HAC),
2010; Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), 2004). Coroners fulfil the legal
obligations of the state as set out by the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) in relation to deaths in state detention (Baker, 2016b). They must pay partic-
ular regard to article 2 of the ECHR which enshrines the right to life of citizens. The
significance of article 2 of the ECHR has been to impose an ‘evidential burden’ upon the
state in terms of how it investigates such cases (Matthews, 2014). It requires the state to
provide an explanation of such a death that is satisfactory and convincing.
Coronial practice is also guided by statute and precedent (Dorries, 2004). Changes to
practice in inquests involving deaths in state detention have been effected primarily
through precedent (Matthews, 2014). A key change wrought by article 2 of the
ECHR is the definition of ‘how an individual came to meet their death’. Prior to the
enactment of the 1998 Human Rights Act, this was considered to be ‘by what means’
they came to meet their death, whereas it is now interpreted as ‘in what circumstances’
(Widdicombe, 2012). This has affected coronial practice at inquests into cases of DAPC.
These are termed ‘article 2 inquests’ and considered to be more rigorous and broader in
scope than was previously the case (Baker, 2016c; Thomas, Straw, & Friedman, 2008).
In particular, article 2 inquests consider systemic and organisational issues relating to
62
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 52(1)
such deaths, rather than focusing purely on what individuals did, or did not, do in
relation to events leading to a death (Baker, 2016a; Matthews, 2014). Changes to prac-
tice in inquests have also produced changes to the outcomes of article 2 inquests in the
form of narrative verdicts. Thus, narrative can be used to construct an explanation of
how a citizen dies after police contact. This paper examines the factors that affect the
construction of such a narrative and considers what this might tell us about the complex
processes that inform its production.
Narrative verdicts
Luce (2003) believed narrative verdicts could provide clarity in contentious cases where
there are typically multi-causal reasons for the death. Narrative verdicts do not have a
standardised format and can vary in length from three sentences to three pages. They
may be handwritten by the jury and may incorporate a questionnaire prepared for the
jury by the coroner. The essentially regional nature of the coronial service means that
juries have a good deal of latitude in what they include in a narrative and how they
structure it (Baker, 2016a). They enable the jury to set out the key facts they believe to
be relevant in explaining how an individual meets their death. Narrative verdicts have
emerged largely as an unintended consequence of changes imposed by article 2 of the
ECHR (Baker, 2016b). As a result, they represent somewhat of an anomaly in the
coronial world, as they do not exist in other English-speaking common law-based
jurisdictions that use coronial systems (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the
US); nor do they occur in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Narrative verdicts differ from other forms of verdicts principally because of the scope
of findings recorded by the jury (Matthews, 2014). This produces a significant amount of
detailed findings in cases of DAPC, which in turn means that we know more about the
circumstances involved in such deaths, and can thus consider potential interventions as
a result (Baker, 2016a). As such, examining the various contexts that affect the con-
struction of narrative verdicts can aid criminological understanding of the complex issue
of DAPC. If collated and analysed at a national level, narrative verdicts could provide a
way to learn lessons that prevent future deaths (Coles & Shaw, 2012).
Dorries (2004) notes that narrative verdicts function as statements of findings rather
than as labels, as is the case with more typically used short-form verdicts. In 2013 the
Chief Coroner declared that the term ‘verdict’ should be replaced with ‘determination’,
albeit that it still tends to be reported as a ‘verdict’ by the media (Matthews, 2014).
Coroners typically now refer to it variously as a ‘conclusion’, a ‘determination’ or as
‘findings’ (Baker, 2016b). To date, narrative verdicts have received relatively little atten-
tion from academic writers. Exceptions are Scraton (2006) who examined their use in
holding the prison system to account for deaths in custody; Carroll, Hawton, Kapur,
Bennewith and Gunnell (2012) and Hill and Cook (2011), who focused on the effect of
narrative verdicts on the analysis of general mortality data; McIntosh (2012), who
examined narrative verdicts in relation to providing accountability to children’s next
of kin; and Pilkington et al. (2014), who considered the possible use of narrative verdicts
to learn lessons in the aftermath of road traffic accidents. This paper adds to this liter-
ature by investigating how narrative verdicts can inform our knowledge of coronial
Baker
63
practices in relation to cases of DAPC and how accountability is constructed in
these cases.
As previously noted, deaths in state detention are notable for being marked by multi-
causality. Using narrative verdicts is one way in which detailed findings can be recorded
in relation to such deaths, and thus enable audiences to make sense of how an...
To continue reading
Request your trial