Second inquest into MP's death
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A SECOND inquest has been ordered into the death of a Labour MP who died within an hour of leaving a Liverpool hospital in July 1990, writes David Connett.
The High Court said a new inquest should be held into the death of Michael Carr, 41, the former MP for Bootle, after deciding an original inquest jury had been unlawfully summoned.
The court was told that the original inquest, opened by the Liverpool coroner, Stanley Barter, was adjourned for further inquiries.
It resumed without a jury in February 1991, but the coroner agreed to summon one after family lawyers said he was obliged to do so. As a 'short cut', nine jurors were obtained from Liverpool Crown Court.
The inquest was adjourned after four days for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider bringing manslaughter charges after the jury was told a nurse at Walton Hospital did not pass on details of Mr Carr's symptoms to a doctor.
When the DPP ruled, 13 months later, that there was insufficient evidence for criminal proceedings the inquest resumed without one member of the jury. It was adjourned again so that the MP's wife could challenge the legality of the proceedings.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments