ICO encourages release of ‘more data’ on sudden deaths
The Information Commissioner has encouraged the Bermuda judiciary to “proactively publish more information, data and statistics” about the work of the coroner.
Jason Outerbridge, in a decision issued on Friday, upheld the judicial department’s withholding of records about inquests from The Royal Gazette in response to a public access to information request.
He found that the records were exempt from the Public Access to Information Act because they related to the “exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions”.
However, Mr Outerbridge wrote that the “co-operation of the parties” during his review into the department’s refusal to release records “brought new light to the operations of the Coroner’s Office” and resulted in additional information being disclosed about inquests.
He wrote: “Resource constraints aside, and despite the fact that records responsive to this Pati request fell outside the application of the Pati Act, the Information Commissioner encourages the department [and the judiciary] to continue to proactively publish more information, data and statistics about the functions and activities of the Coroner’s Office that is of relevance to the general public, in addition to the information that is required to be provided under the Pati Act.”
The Gazette’s Pati request was submitted in 2024 as part of an investigation into the lack of public inquests on sudden deaths.
In the previous ten years, only four inquests appeared to have been opened.
There has since been a further public inquest this month.
In January it was announced that a bipartisan committee appointed by the Attorney-General would review the law governing inquests into sudden deaths.
The items sought in the request included a list of all of the hundreds of sudden deaths referred to the coroner since 2017, records showing if inquests into them were held either privately, in public or if an inquest was deemed unnecessary, and findings of fact for each of the deaths.
It also asked for any reports written by the coroner to prevent future deaths. Such reports are required to be issued by coroners in England and Wales when they believe action should be taken to prevent future deaths.
No such duty exists in Bermuda but coroners have the power to issue reports under Rule 16 of the Coroners Rules 2000.
The judicial department rejected the Pati request largely on the grounds that the records were exempt from disclosure under Section 4 of the Act. It said no reports to prevent future deaths existed.
The Gazette asked the ICO to review the decision.
Mr Outerbridge wrote that he was “satisfied that coroners, when exercising duties and functions explicitly assigned to coroners by statute, are carrying out either judicial or quasi-judicial functions”.
He found the department to be justified in applying Section 4 of the Act to the request “because any responsive records were related to the judicial or quasi-judicial functions of a coroner and not related to the general administration of the department”.
Mr Outerbridge added that if any reports to prevent future deaths existed, they would also be exempt from disclosure under Section 4.
He claimed that the “net benefit to the wider public” of the Pati request and ICO review was that “details of the Coroner’s Office activities are now better represented in the Bermuda judiciary’s 2025 annual report.
“The annual report has now included a table of causes of death in coroner’s cases 2021-25 and a chart of total causes of death in coroner’s cases in 2025.
“This shows a degree of progress for proactive publication of the Coroner’s Office’s statistical data.”
However, earlier annual reports have included the table and chart.
The Gazette asked the Information Commissioner, during his review, to compare the amount of publicly available statistics for sudden deaths in England and Wales with Bermuda.
Mr Outerbridge wrote it was “quite evident that national data for England and Wales is professionally compiled and analysed by statisticians.
“Achieving the complexity and quality of data, as reported in England and Wales, would require additional resources at the department.”
The Gazette has asked the judiciary for comment.
• To read the ICO decision, see Related Media
You must be Registered or to post comment or to vote.
