The Chief Coroner’s Bench Book and Interested Person (IP) status

The Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench (commonly referred to as the Bench Book) was published in January 2025 consolidating the Chief Coroner Guidance Notes and effectively superseding the 2015 Bench Book, taking precedence where inconsistencies exist (New “Bench Book” for coroners released).

The Bench Book provides procedural and legal direction on the conduct of inquests, including the identification and treatment of “Interested Persons” (IPs). It is highly influential in practice, as it shapes how coroners exercise discretion in granting IP status and determining participation rights. Recent focus on organisational accountability—particularly in the context of proposed reforms such as Hillsborough Law—has heightened the relevance of the Bench Book’s approach to IP status at an individual employee level, highlighting tension between recognising staff separately as IPs versus treating representation as vested solely in the employing organisation, with implications for disclosure, representation, and perceived fairness in the inquest process.

The position of employee IPs before the 2025 Bench Book publication

Prior to 2025:

• it was common practice for the organisation alone (e.g. NHS Trust) to be treated as the relevant IP and for individual employees to participate solely as witnesses and through the organisation’s legal team;

• separate IP status for employees was inconsistent, often granted only where blame, criticism, or clear personal exposure arose, or where a manifest conflict of interest existed;

• older guidance did not expressly state that employees should routinely be told of an independent right to IP status or involvement in the death alone sufficed to trigger that right.

This meant the default assumption favoured unitary corporate representation.

The position of employee IPs after the 2025 Bench Book publication

In Chapter 2: Interested Persons, the Bench Book states that, where an organisation (e.g. NHS Trust, healthcare provider, care home, police force, employer) is granted IP status because of the acts or omissions of an employee, that employee will “invariably” or “usually” be entitled to IP status in their own right. This entitlement is decided/granted by the Coroner (not the organisation or employee) and:

• arises from involvement alone, not wrongdoing

• does not require any conflict of interest between the organisation and employee

• applies even where the organisation already has corporate IP status

The guidance further emphasises that:

• employees should be informed of their individual right to IP status, and

• Coroners should not assume a single corporate IP adequately represents individual interests.

The changes summarised

Implications when an employee becomes a separate IP

Even in the absence of any “conflict”, employees have autonomous rights to disclosure, questioning, and submissions and may take positions that diverge subtly from organisational narratives. Organisations must assess whether independent legal advice is required for employees and failure to address this may expose the organisation to later criticism and allegations of insufficient support or procedural unfairness.

Disadvantages

More IPs means longer hearings, more disclosure requests, increased disclosure and correspondence obligations (all substantive submissions must be shared with all IPs), and increased costs.

Benefits

Clear separation of organisational and systems issues and individual professional perspectives may support more credible Prevention of Future Deaths reports (PFDs) and develop learning cultures.

Funding

There is no automatic public funding for employee IPs and no general rule that the employer must pay. Who pays for an employee’s legal representation at an inquest depends on employment arrangements, insurance/indemnity cover, discretionary employer support, and (very rarely) Legal Aid or self-funding.

What happens if the employee has committed (or is alleged to have committed) a wrongdoing?

If wrongdoing is alleged, there is often an actual conflict (or serious potential conflict) between:

• the organisation’s interests (governance, systems, reputation, regulatory exposure), and

• the employee’s interests (self‑incrimination risk, criminal defence strategy)

In those circumstances, the organisation may not wish its lawyers to represent the employee, advise them to obtain independent advice, and advise the Coroner that the employee’s acts/omissions are centrally in scope. That is not forcing IP status, but it does force separation of legal strategy.

The best approach in these complex situations will very much depend on the facts of the specific case.

The emphasis under the new guidance is for organisations to tell staff their rights, obtain early conflicts advice on representation and keep the organisation’s role focused on candour, disclosure, and learning.

How does employee IP status interact with Hillsborough Law?

The Hillsborough Law Bill proposes “parity of representation” for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is involved—i.e., to address situations where the state/public bodies are legally represented and families are not (“Hillsborough Law” – what NHS bodies need to know | Weightmans).

Chapter 2 of the Bench Book and Hillsborough Law taken together materially reshape the practical reality of inquests for healthcare providers:

• Bench Book 2025, Chapter 2 (Interested Persons) → broadening who participates

• Hillsborough Law → reshaping how they must behave and how they are funded

The same individuals who are now more likely to be IPs will also be personally subject to a statutory duty of candour under Hillsborough on top of increased procedural rights through participating in inquests outwith their organisation.

Key takeaway for organisations

The 2025 Bench Book does not change the law, but it changes expectations and practice.

For organisations:

• separate employee IP status should now be treated as the norm, not the exception

• early identification, communication, and legal strategy are essential

• failure to adapt carries procedural, reputational, and governance risks.