I am writing to inform you that I intend to include two further measures in the proposed counter terrorism bill. The measures relate to coroners' inquests that will involve material that could not be disclosed publicly without harming the public interest and measures to establish a universal UK jurisdiction for terrorist offences.

Coroner's inquests

  The Coroners Act 1988 requires or creates a power for coroners to hold inquests with a jury when they have reason to suspect that an individual has died a violent, unnatural or unexplained death in prison or while in police custody, as well as in certain other circumstances. In such circumstances, an inquest may provide the means by which the UK complies with its obligation to investigate deaths under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It may therefore be necessary in some cases for coroners' inquests to consider material that could not be disclosed publicly without harming the public interest (for example, for reasons of national security or international relations). But material that cannot be disclosed publicly could not be shown to the jury, as the finders of fact. This creates the potential for coroners' inquests to be incompatible with Article 2 of the ECHR where the sensitive material is central to the inquest. In order to remove this potential, we have developed two legislative proposals which will ensure that coroners' inquests in England and Wales can always comply with Article 2 of the ECHR.

  First, it is proposed that coroners should be required to hold inquests without juries in all cases which the Secretary of State has certified will involve consideration of material that could not be disclosed publicly without damaging the public interest for reasons of national security, international relations or for other public interest reasons. Sitting without a jury, suitably trained and cleared coroners, as the finders of fact in these inquests, will be able to see the material in question. It will be possible for coroners in certified cases to invite suitably trained and cleared counsel to assist the inquest. Counsel to the inquest, one of whose functions will be to represent the interests of bereaved families, will also be able to see the material in question.

  Second, we also propose to add coroners presiding over such inquests, and counsel appointed for the purpose of assisting them, to the tightly drawn list of exceptions in section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which would allow material derived from intercept to be disclosed to them where the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential.

  We propose to make a corresponding amendment to section 18 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to permit intercept material to be disclosed, in exceptional circumstances, to counsel to an inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005. The panel to an inquiry can already seek disclosure of intercept in exceptional circumstances. The Government is firmly of the view that the proposed changes are necessary in order to ensure that we are able to comply with our Article 2 obligations while protecting the integrity of the material in question. We are working with colleagues to consider whether equivalent provisions should be made for Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Measure to establish a universal UK jurisdiction

  I would like to legislate in the Counter-Terrorism Bill to provide UK universal jurisdiction for terrorist specific offences. This would enable an offence under the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006 committed in any part of the UK to be tried in any other part of the UK.

  The events in Glasgow earlier this year have highlighted a potential issue in relation to jurisdiction over terrorism cases. Although terrorism offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Terrorism Act 2006 are UK wide there must be a link with England for the offences to be tried her (and the same is true in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively) and such a link may not be apparent until the investigation is well advanced.

  Lack of clarity on these issues threatened to cause problems in the Glasgow case. This was resolved because the suspects could be prosecuted for both the incidents in London and Glasgow under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. This facilitated the transfer of the investigation to the Metropolitan police because the 1883 Act allows for prosecution in any part of the UK for explosions that are carried out anywhere in the UK. This issue has been highlighted by Lord Carlile in his report on the Bill which was published on 6 December.

  There may, however, be circumstances where we are unable to transfer investigations under current legislation. Therefore we propose to legislate in the forthcoming Counter-Terrorism Bill to make it clear that a terrorist offence committed in any part of the UK can be prosecuted in any other part of the UK. This would enable prosecutions to take place in the most appropriate jurisdiction, whether that is in England and Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  The proposal would be supported by the development of protocols between the police in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland on how cross border police issues should be handled in terrorism cases.

  I am copying this letter to Chris Huhne MP, Peter Wishart MP, Elfyn Llwyd MP, Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Andrew Dismore MP, Rt Hon Alan Beith MP and Lord Carlile of Berriew QC.

Jacqui Smith MP

21 January 2008