Overview
At the time of this report, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)’s coroners statistics are published as accredited official statistics.
The coroners statistics present information on the number of deaths reported to coroners, post-mortem examinations and inquests held, and conclusions recorded at inquests in England and Wales. They are used to understand trends in deaths reported to coroners and how long cases take to progress through the coroners’ court system.
We carried out a high-level review of these statistics’ compliance with the standards of the Code of Practice for Statistics. The review considered whether MoJ can continue to publish the statistics as accredited official statistics and aimed to make recommendations for improving the statistics.
Why we did this review
We have previously reviewed the Office for National Statistics (ONS)’s mortality statistics. These statistics report all deaths registered in England and Wales, including those involving a coroner.
As part of the follow-up to our work on ONS’s mortality statistics, we decided to carry out a review of MoJ’s coroners statistics to better understand coroners’ processes and how coroners’ data feed into the mortality statistics. This review focused on the quality and value of the statistics. We last reviewed the coroners statistics in 2011.
Findings
The statistical bulletin provides clear advice for users on interpreting the statistics, which ensures that the statistics are used appropriately. For instance, it cautions users against making regional comparisons, points out uncertainties in new data series and highlights revisions to the statistics.
MoJ has continued to develop the statistics in recent years, providing users with further insight on different aspects of coroners’ investigations. This work has included introducing several new data series, such as the number of inquests in writing, and MoJ has plans to add further breakdowns of the data.
The bulletin presents comparisons with related statistics, such as HM Prisons and Probation Service’s data on deaths in custody, which helps users understand the coherence of the statistics with other data sources. The differences between these statistics are also explained in depth in the guide to coroners statistics.
MoJ engages effectively with users and routinely seeks user feedback on the statistics. A good example of this is the recently launched user consultation, which aims to better understand how the statistics are used and ensure that they are meeting user needs.
The statistics team has a constructive relationship with coroners, the Chief Coroner’s office and the suppliers of the IT systems that coroners use to record data. This allows changes to data collections to be implemented quickly and communicated clearly to coroners.
The quality statement for the coroners statistics outlines their production process and summarises the team’s quality assurance checks. However, there are gaps in quality information; in particular, the quality statement does not explain how coroners quality-assure their own data and how the statistics team works with coroners to understand their systems and implement changes to data collections.
Our judgement
Based on the findings of this review, it is our view that the statistics comply with the standards of Trustworthiness, Quality and Value in the Code of Practice for Statistics and should retain their accredited official statistics status. To enhance the quality and value of the statistics, we recommend that MoJ:
- Add information on data quality and the limitations of the statistics to the data tables as well as the statistical bulletin to support users’ interpretation of the data.
- Add more background and contextual information at the start of the bulletin to make the statistics more relevant to users. For example, the bulletin could explain when and why a post-mortem needs to be carried out, and what ‘state detention’ means.
- Expand its published quality information to cover all aspects of the accuracy and reliability of the data, including coroners’ quality assurance arrangements, to assure users about data quality. MoJ should consult our Quality Assurance of Administrative Data (QAAD) framework to guide this work.
Next steps
We will continue to engage with MoJ and expect it to consider implementing our recommendations to enhance the public value offered by the statistics and in turn increase users’ confidence in them.