Loughlin v The Coroner for the Counties of Sligo and Leitrim
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Noonan |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 273 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 487 J.R.],2018 487 JR,[2018 No. 487 JR] |
| Date | 03 April 2019 |
AND
[2019] IEHC 273
Noonan J.
[2018 No. 487 J.R.]
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Inquest – Coroners Act 1962 s. 30 – Judicial review – Applicants seeking judicial review – Whether the respondent misconstrued the meaning and effect of s. 30 of the Coroners Act 1962
Facts: The son of the applicants, Mr and Mrs Loughlin, died on the 24th February, 2018 as a result of a violent assault by a third party who was charged with his murder and awaited trial. In the affidavit grounding an application for judicial review sworn by the applicants’ solicitor, he averred that the applicants instructed him that it was widely rumoured in the Sligo area that the third party had a history of violent behaviour and admissions to psychiatric facilities. It was the applicants’ belief that the third party was discharged from such a facility in the period immediately preceding the death of their son. The respondent, the Coroner for the Counties of Sligo and Leitrim, had determined to hold an inquest into the death. The applicants contended that the refusal of the Coroner to seek the medical chart of the third party from the Health Service Executive’s mental health services including St. Columba’s Hospital, Sligo, was unlawful. They argued that he had misconstrued the meaning and effect of s. 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 and had further misconstrued the meaning and effect of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held by the High Court (Noonan J) that, having noted that the applicants from the outset drew the Coroner’s attention to certain rumours and suspicions concerning the third party which may bear on how the deceased met his death, this was a legitimate line of inquiry which the family were entitled to pursue and they would be unfairly hampered in doing so without access to the evidence sought, particularly in circumstances where the allaying of rumour and suspicion is one of the fundamental purposes of an inquest.
Noonan J held that the applicants were entitled to relief and that he would discuss further with counsel the appropriate form of such relief.
Relief granted.
The applicants” son, James Loughlin died on the 24th February, 2018 as a result of a violent assault by a third party who was charged with his murder and awaits trial. The applicants believe that the third party in question has a history of mental illness and violent behaviour.
In the affidavit grounding this application for judicial review sworn by the applicants” solicitor, Damien Tansey, Mr. Tansey avers that the applicants instruct him that it is widely rumoured in the Sligo area that the third party has a history of violent behaviour and admissions to psychiatric facilities. It is the applicants” belief that the third party was discharged from such a facility in the period immediately preceding the death of their son. The respondent (‘the Coroner’) has determined to hold an inquest into the death.
By letter of the 15th March, 2018, Mr. Tansey wrote to the Coroner and said:
‘We also understand that the assailant in this matter has a long history of mental illness and has been a patient of the Health Service Executives mental health services. Accordingly, you might please confirm that you have requested the medical chart of the assailant from the aforesaid mental health and psychiatric services including St. Columba's Hospital, Sligo.’
The Coroner responded on the 20th March, 2018:
‘From an inquest point of view this person is a potential witness. It is not appropriate that their psychiatric history be obtained by the Coroner.’
Mr. Tansey responded on the 26th March, 2018 reiterating the alleged history of the assailant and contending that this history was material to the inquest. The Coroner replied on the 28th March stating that if the family wished it, he would call the assailant as a witness and continued:
‘In view of the wording of s. 30 of the Coroner's Act, 1962 it is not my intention to explore or delve into criminal liability or civil liability.
The request to a third party in this instance to produce documentation in relation to an individual perhaps involved in the death is not a matter which the Coroner can become involved in.’
Mr. Tansey wrote again on the 13th April, 2018 referring to a number of judgments in support of the family's contention that s. 30 of the Coroner's Act, 1962 did not in fact preclude the Coroner from inquiring into the matters in issue.
In his further response of the 23rd April, 2018, the Coroner said:
‘In relation to the death of James Loughlin it is my contention that the terms of Article 2 of the European Convention and (sic) Human Rights are not engaged on the facts of the case and for the following reasons.
(a) There is no engagement, in relation to the death, by the agents of the State of Ireland.
(b) It appears that James Loughlin and the third party/attacker were not known to one another.
(c) It appears that the attack is solely one of chance and was totally unpredictable.
As enunciated in the Middleton case in the U.K. in 2004 Article 2 of the European Convention and (sic) Human Rights is not engaged and hence a wide scope investigation by the Coroner is not warranted and I as Coroner should not therefore have the right to seek the medical records of an attacker.’
Mr. Tansey again took issue with the Coroner in a further letter of the 2nd May, 2018 followed by a lengthy letter of the 22nd May, 2018 effectively comprising detailed legal submissions in support of the family's position.
The Coroner replied on the 28th June, 2018. In this letter, the Coroner reiterated reliance on Article 2 of the ECHR saying:
‘It is my contention that it is only pursuant to an Article 2 type inquest under the European Convention on Human Rights that an investigation can be made into the medical history of the person who assaulted James Loughlin.
In the circumstances of the applicability of Article 2 the Coroner can investigate whether the agents of the State, in looking after [the alleged assailant], failed to provide adequate medical attention to him and/or released into society while he was still a danger to members of society.
It is only when Article 2 applies that a Coroner conduct an investigation into the actions of this third party.
If the inquest is not determined to be an inquest under Article 2 of the European Convention and Human Rights then there is no scope at common law or under the Coroner's Act, 1962 for the Coroner to investigate the actions of the third party involved in the assault on James Loughlin.
There is not, in my view, any power for a Coroner to produce documents to you and to investigate the actions of a third party if the facts and circumstances of the case are outside that of Article 2 of the European Convention and Human Rights.’
The Coroner enclosed with this letter a copy letter sent to the legal representatives of the State Claims Agency canvassing their views and those of the HSE as to whether the inquest should be an inquest under Article 2.
The applicants contend that the refusal of the Coroner to seek the documents in question is unlawful. They argue that he has misconstrued the meaning and effect of s. 30 of the Coroners Act, 1962, as amended and has...
To continue reading
Request your trial