CLAR-Jury Recommendations Historic

Inform victim families of post-mortem rights and viewing opportunities with caution

Clarke Inquiry · Clarke Inquiry — Final Report · Issued 23 March 2001

Source — verbatim from the inquiry

Inquiry recommendation

I would also reiterate the recommendations which the inquest jury, although not strictly empowered to do so, made in a letter delivered to Dr Burton with their verdict on 7thApril 1995: 1. Families of victims must always be informed of their rights to attend or elect medical representatives to attend post mortems. With appropriate counselling, they should be offered the opportunity to view their relative’s body. The issue of visual identification must, however, be treated with caution. 2. Removal of hands for the identification of bodies should be done only when all other methods have been exhausted (especially the matching of dental records) and not as a matter of expediency. In such circumstances, mortuary technicians and pathologists must remember that a procedure which may seem standard to them, is likely to be deeply distressing and offensive to relatives. 3. We would like to remind all agencies of the importance of keeping detailed and accurate records. Particular attention should be given to the correct documentation of proceedings in the mortuary.

Clarke Inquiry, Clarke Inquiry — Final Report · 23 Mar 2001 Source PDF →

Response — verbatim from government

No formal government response recorded

The Index has not yet recorded a verbatim government response to this recommendation.

Evidence trail — what's actually happened since

No published activity has been recorded against this recommendation yet.

Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.

How this page is built

Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.

This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.