A Shift From Previous Practice

The Interested Person (IP) status sits at the heart of every inquest. It carries the right to see evidence, put questions to witnesses, and take an active part in proceedings. The category of IP is set out in statute and covers a wide range of people, from close family members through to employers, healthcare providers, and others whose connection to the case gives them a proper stake in how it unfolds. Until recently, coroners tended to be careful about confirming this status for anyone who might come in for criticism, often waiting for the point to be settled by agreement first. This left both employees and their employers unsure where they stood.

What the New Guidance Says

The Chief Coroner’s Guidance for Coroners on the Bench, known in short as the Bench Guidance, took over from the old Bench Book in 2025. It sets out a much clearer position on individual status within an inquest. When an organisation becomes an interested person because of something an employee did or failed to do, that employee can normally claim the same standing in their own name, separate from their employer. This individual right stands on its own and does not depend on there being any conflict between the employee and the organisation they work for. Employers are now expected to tell staff about this right directly, even where the organisation already holds status in its own capacity.

This is a real change of direction. In the past, the risk of criticism could stop an individual being recognised as an IP. That barrier has now gone. Making someone aware of their right to this status says nothing about how likely they are to be criticised. It is simply a matter of letting people know about a right they already have. The wider theme running through the guidance is a move towards treating each participant as a distinct individual, rather than an extension of the employer’s position.

Why This Matters for Organisations and Individuals

The general view is that organisations preparing for an inquest now need to treat individual staff participation as a routine part of planning, rather than something reserved for the most serious cases. Others writing on the topic have made a similar point, observing that becoming an IP can feel unsettling for an employee, and that employers should think carefully about how they support staff through it.

For staff, the clarity is welcome. They can ask for IP status without that request being taken as a sign they are personally in the firing line. For organisations, it adds a fresh administrative step, since staff need to be told about their rights early, often before the shape of the inquest is clear.

There are knock on effects too. Once an employee holds IP status, they gain their own right to disclosure and can instruct separate legal representation from their employer. That can change how evidence is put together, how legal advice is coordinated, and how consistent the overall position stays as the inquest progresses.

Practical Implications

Organisations should look again at how they identify anyone who might be involved in an inquest. It should now be essential to talk to affected staff early, rather than leaving this as optional. Those early conversations need to cover what IP status actually means, what it does not signal, and what support, including independent legal advice, is on offer.

Legal teams should build this notification step into how they handle every inquest as a matter of routine. By so doing, unnecessary delay is avoided and employees feel included from the outset, all while helping an organisation present a coherent and transparent position throughout.

The Bench Guidance is written as a living document, meant to be updated as practice develops. Organisations would do well to keep their own inquest procedures under regular review. Staying current will help organisations manage inquests with confidence, while giving staff the clarity they need to take part with confidence of their own.