Desmond v Riordan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Frederick Morris
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IEHC 237
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 253 P]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 14 July 1999

[1999] IEHC 237

THE HIGH COURT

253/1996

DESMOND & MCD MANAGEMENT v. RIORDAN

BETWEEN

DENIS DESMOND

AND

M.C.D.MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

CORNELIUS RIORDAN

DEFENDANT

Citations:

MACAULEY & CO LTD V WYSE POWER 1943 77 ILTR 61

SIRROS V MOORE 1975 QB 118

CORONERS ACT 1962 S30

JERVIS ON CORONERS 10ED 37

GARNETT V FERRAND 1827 6 B & C 611

FOXALL V BARNETT 1853 2 E & B 928

CONSTITUTION ART 35.2

Synopsis

Evidence

Privilege; determination of preliminary issue; whether statements made by a coroner while conducting an inquest enjoy absolute privilege irrespective of his state of mind; whether privilege ceases once a coroner is aware that he is exceeding his jurisdiction and continues to act; s.30, Coroners Act, 1962.

Held: Statements made by coroner in carrying out his duties under s.30 enjoy absolute privilege; once a coroner strays outside the functions which he is required to perform under the Act and once he knows he is no longer performing one of these functions he ceases to enjoy privilege.

Desmond v. Riordan - High Court: Morris P. - 14/07/1999 - [2000] 1 IR 505 - [2000] 1 ILRM 502

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Frederick Morrisdelivered on the 14th day of July 1999

2 This matter comes before the Court pursuant to an Order of the 7th July 1997 (Johnson J.) whereby it was ordered by consent that the following issue be tried as a preliminary issue namely "whether or not a Coroner enjoys absolute privilege in respect of anything he says in the course of an inquest irrespective of his state of mind".

3 The issue arises in the following circumstances.

4 The first named Plaintiff is the Managing Director of the second named Plaintiff and the second named Plaintiff is a limited company engaged in the business of promoting and organising concerts. The second named Plaintiff promoted and organised Feile 1995 which took place over the 1995 August Bank Holiday weekend at Paire Ui Chaoimh, Cork.

5 During the course of this event a young man, Mr. Bernard Rice, it is said, attempted to gain entrance into Paire Ui Chaoimh by swimming across the River Lee and it is believed that in so doing he wasdrowned.

6 On the 15th September 1995 while conducting an inquest into the death of Mr. Rice the Defendant, who is a Solicitor and is the Coroner of the City of Cork, is alleged to have spoke and published wordsconcerning the Plaintiffs and each of them which it is alleged were defamatory. It is alleged that he said:

"An extravaganza of song, music and sleazy excesses that seem to have cast a hypnotic spell over the youth, as testified by thistragedy"

7 and

"The social and cultural values which inspire G.A.A. Clubs in Cork City and County appear to be in stark contrast to the questionable engagements such as Feile in pursuant of financial funds by the G.A.A. in Cork."

8 The Defendant in his defence raises the following plea:

"The Defendant will contend that the Plaintiffs are estopped from maintaining these proceedings by virtue of the words alleged as having been used (which said words are denied) being used by the Defendant in the course of his acting as a lawfully appointed Coroner and conducting a Coroners Court pursuant to the Coroners Acts."

9 It accordingly becomes necessary to determine whether or not a Coroner enjoys absolute privilege in respect of anything he says in the Course of an inquest irrespective of his state of mind.

10 It is, in my view, well settled that the immunity from suit enjoyed by the Judiciary exists not for the benefit of the Judge but for the benefit of the community as a whole. This immunity is perceived to be necessary and desirable so that a Judge may perform his functions the better freed of concern that in the course of performing his duties he may defame a Third Party and be required to be answerable to that Party in damages.

11 This view has been maintained in a series of cases from early times but in this Jurisdiction in MacAuley and Company Limited v Wyse Power (1943)77 ILTR61 Maguire J. held "The people were entitled to have the opinion of the Judge without the fear of his words being challenged elsewhere." It was a...