A short 3 minute read.
We regularly assist Solicitors with a variety of Forensic Pathology services including neuropathology, paediatric pathology, post mortems (PM) and second post mortem reviews.
Requests for 2nd PMs from criminal defence lawyers have implications for the Coroner who must consider the needs of the family balanced with the requirements of the investigation. These needs of the family are of a critical concern of a coroner who is under obligation to avoid unnecessary delay and thus further trauma to the family of the deceased, an obligation which has been stressed under recent new guidelines from the chief coroner (23rd September 2019).
Under the same guidance notes, the initial Post Mortem is advised to use imaging techniques (such as CT, MRI and standard high resolution photography) to ensure that if a second post-mortem is to be conducted, a review of the desktop evidence can be just as effective as a full physical examination. As Pathologists can often provide comment and opinion from a ‘Post Mortem Desktop Review’, the efficient release of the body to the bereaved family shouldn’t cause too much concern for Criminal Defence teams, and thus the criminal justice system.
A review of imaging and photographs provides the material needed for the pathologist to be able to review the evidence without the need for further examination or dissection of the body - with the following provisos:
This would remove the need for a further examination of the deceased and therefore present potential delays in release of the body to the bereaved.
Since this approach was outlined in the Guidance from the Chief Coroner (September 2019) we’ve seen an increase at Forensic Access in the amount of second post mortems utilising this desktop method versus the traditional physical examination. A pathologist is more readily able to carry out a desktop review with less scrutiny, yet they can state any differences in interpretation of the results just as easily.
Criminal defence teams should consider asking their forensic pathologist whether a full second post-mortem is necessary under the circumstances of the case. If their opinion is that the initial examination was to an adequate standard and covered all areas, then counsel should feel confident in requesting a desktop review to answer any further questions whilst providing a different opinion or interpretation. In fact, it is often this difference in interpretation on which the defence bases its case. Most forensic pathologists (in light of the new guidance notes) are more eager to help with conducting a desktop review than they are in securing a second examination.
Lastly and perhaps most crucially for the time-starved solicitor; there is less to-and-froing with the coroner and the mortuary to organise a second post-mortem examination. The materials required by the forensic pathologist can be requested via the usual CPS route.
If you have any queries related to Pathology - or any other forensic discipline – please do get in touch. We work very closely with our team of Pathologists and consider each case separately to advise our customers on the best forensic strategy for their case.
Why Putting Costs Over Quality is Asking for Trouble in Forensics
Forensic Access acquires IntaForensics to strengthen their position as a leading forensic services organisation
How to get the most out of your expert witness report:
Interview with CCTV Forensics Expert Iain McArthur
Sexual assault cases: An issue of consent?
Subscribe to our mailing list and stay up to date with all news and events