Southern Daily Echo editor-in-chief Ian Murray has clashed with the Lord Chancellor over plans to change the powers of coroners.

The disagreement occurred during the Newspaper Society/Press Gazette Media Law seminar in London, where Lord Falconer was giving the keynote address.

The pair clashed during questions following Lord Falconer’s speech, where Ian Murray voiced concerns over proposals to change the powers of coroners.

Under the plan, coroners may be given new powers to impose reporting restrictions at inquests in England, which could ban the publication of the names or anything that might identify the deceased.

Where the death of a child is involved or there is a verdict of suicide, coroners would be able to instruct the press not to reveal names to avoid further grief to relatives.

Ian said: “I spoke of my concerns over these proposals. These amounted to a worry that the powers would mean that probably the most important of all inquiries – into the death of a citizen – would now disappear behind closed doors. The press would be permitted to report the inquest, but all details of who the dead person was would have to be avoided.”

In front of an audience of media experts, lawyers and journalists, he said he feared such a move could lead to justice being thwarted.

He claimed that while keeping a dead child’s name out of the papers would reduce the family’s torment, it would be impossible for anyone reading the report to know if what was said was true.

He said: “The basis of all British justice is that it is seen before the eyes of the world. That way anyone who disputes the facts – ‘they lied about being with the child all night because I saw them both in the pub’ – can come forward.

“Lord Falconer’s answer to my concerns was to dismiss them as unnecessary. He explained he could not see how naming the deceased would help justice to be seen to be done.

“I believe he is wrong – wrong and dangerous.

“Once investigations into the deaths of citizens slip behind closed doors then we enter a new and dangerous world, one where the state can decide whether it wishes you to know how someone died.”

He cited a “hypothetical” example where a Government scientist who went to the press with evidence over what led to a war might be found dead, and while the press would be able to report on that death, might not be allowed to cover the subsequent inquest, a move that would build rumour and breed speculation.

Ian said: “It doesn’t take Einstein to work out what the next step would be to prevent this – laws to prevent the reporting of any death until a coroner has given their permission.

“No doubt the changes being proposed to the powers of coroners are being considered for the best of reasons. There are genuine concerns that families should suffer no more than necessary. I can only agree that steps should be taken to make inquests less of an ordeal.

“But not, Lord Chancellor, at further loss of the people’s hard won freedoms and liberty.”

Lord Falconer had told the law conference: “It remains right that the verdicts in inquests are open and known. But can it be right that the families also have to deal with salacious press coverage of aspects of the deceased’s private life. Again a balance needs to be struck to ensure we do not add unnecessarily to the distress of the family.”

He said there was a strong view that the reporting of inquests, often involving tragic deaths, or suicide, could lead to “a great deal of additional suffering” and distress for the families involved.

He added: “The Government’s draft Coroners Reform Bill proposes that the coroner should be able, in certain cases like child deaths and suicides, to impose restrictions on what can be reported, such as insisting on anonymity. The system cannot undo the trauma of losing a loved one, but it can lessen unnecessary distress. The decision, in the first instance should be down to the judge.”