20th August 2026
A short post in respect of the death of Jason Arday
This post is not about the alleged wrongs of the late Jason Arday, as the facts are not fully available; and this post is not about the circumstances of his death, again because the facts are not fully available. No opinion is expressed on either point, as I do not know enough to express an opinion.
This post is instead about a specific issue: what would be the appropriate means of addressing the concerns that many have about the circumstances of his death.
*
Some are promoting the idea of a public inquiry.
And there is something about the phrase “a judge-led public inquiry” that has a certain nod-along attraction. Such an inquiry sounds like a good thing in response to the demand that something must be done.
The problem is that public inquiries are often not good things.
Public inquiries are often the means by which “something must be done” ends up with nothing actually being done.
As this blog has previously averred, public inquiries are easily rigged, and often delayed, and their recommendations ignored.
Public inquiries are not magical devices.
Public inquiries are not necessarily your friends.
Indeed, public inquiries are far easier for the powerful to manipulate than, say, civil litigation.
*
The law provides a different and sometimes better mechanism for inquiring into the circumstances of a tragic death, and with formal procedures and legal powers.
Coroners’ inquests are by no means perfect – too often their effectiveness depends on the coroner, and coroners are of mixed qualities and abilities.
But coroners’ inquests are geared towards investigating the circumstances of a death. They are designed to do things which would be difficult for a public inquiry, however structured.
If a coroner’s inquest into the death of Jason Arday is somehow unsatisfactory then, yes, perhaps there may be reason for a specialist inquiry. But in the first instance, a coroner’s inquest should be allowed to do its job.
For that is what coronial inquests are for.
***
Only the most sensible of comments will be published for this post.
Thank you. This is a really key point. However, it’s not just that Coroner’s a variable, it is also that even when they write a Prevention of Future Deaths report, and even if those written to provide an action plan, there is no mechanism or statutory duty to ensure those actions take place. The Coronial system needs improvement. See for example the campaign Inquest charity are running: https://inquest.org.uk/campaigning-for-change/campaigns/no-more-deaths/
Provided the inquest is well run, and assuming a jury is in place, a narrative verdict could be helpful in illuminating what happened in this very sad case, when it happened and what consequences it had.
I recently, for the first time, attended an inquest. I did so merely as a member of the public. What really surprised me (perhaps it shouldn’t have done had I done my homework, but it did) was how extremely narrowly defined was the cause of death. What led to the circumstances occasioning the ‘accident’ was not examined in any detail. There is a comprehensive official statutory safety investigation report concerning the accident – and this was referred to, but not the sections dealing with the underlying preceding causes. Only those strictly referring to the medical treatment received (or not received) and whether that had any bearing on death.
In support of your argument for a Coroner to handle this case there is the example of Coroner Mary Hassle’s inquest on the shocking circumstances leading to Fr. Alan Griffin’s tragic death. There is a thorough and detailed account of the background in the Diocese of London in https://tswyatt.substack.com/p/the-brain-dump. Coroner Mary Hassle issued a Report to Prevent Future Deaths dated 9 July 2021, in accordance with the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Church of England and Diocese of London responded in detail and all of this material was published.
I absolutely agree with the thrust of this post (is that sensible enough?).
There should/must obviously be an inquest in to the tragic circumstances of this death. Only when that – essential – process has been completed should the ‘powers that be’ consider whether there are sufficient wider implications to justify the time and expense of a public enquiry.
For what it is worth, I am very doubtful. Those bodies (universities and equivalents) that have something to learn will no doubt be considering their procedures carefully. What more would be added by a full blown public enquiry?
Totally agree. As it happens local London coroners are really good (speaking from personal experience)