Magee v Farrell and Others

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice Finnegan
Judgment Date28 July 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] IESC 60
CourtSupreme Court
Docket Number[S.C. No. 439 of 2005]
Date28 July 2009
Magee v Farrell & Ors
[2009] IESC 60

BETWEEN

TERESA MAGEE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

and

BRIAN FARRELL AND THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS

[2009] IESC 60

Murray C.J.

Fennelly J.

Finnegan J.

No. 439/2005

THE SUPREME COURT

CONSTITUTION

Access to courts

Legal aid - Inquest - Whether right to legal aid at inquest - Constitutional right to State funded legal aid - Whether State required to provide State funded legal aid or assistance to attend and participate in son's inquest - Difference between criminal proceedings and those before coroner - O'Donoghue v Legal Aid Board [2006] 4 IR 204 approved; Forrest v Legal Aid Board (Unrep, O'Hanlon J, 4/12/1992) and Stevenson v Landy (Unrep, Lardner J, 10/2/1993) distinguished - Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962 (No 12), s 2(1) - Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 (No 4), s 5(6) - Constitution of Ireland 1937, Article 38 - Defendants' appeal allowed (439/2005 - SC - 28/7/2009) [2009] IESC 60

Magee v Farrell

Facts: The respondent was the mother of a nineteen year old male who died in Garda custody following an arrest for public order offences. An inquest was scheduled to take place on 12 February 2004 and the respondent sought legal representation in respect of the inquest but was advised there was no publicly funded provision for legal aid for an inquest. Consequently, the respondent instituted the present proceedings. It was accepted that the respondent did not have the financial means to secure appropriate legal representation at the inquest. The learned trial judge in the High Court found in favour of the respondent, holding that fair procedures under the Constitution required that she be provided with legal aid. The appellant submitted that the entitlement to legal aid arising from Article 38 of the Constitution was limited to criminal proceedings. The respondent replied upon three decisions of the High Court upon which the learned trial judge had also relied, namely, Stevenson v Landy & Ors, Unreported High Court, 10/02/1993, Kirwan v Minister for Justice and Ors, [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 444 and O'Donoghue v The Legal Aid Board and Ors [2004] I.E.H.C. 413.

Held by the Supreme Court; Finnegan J (Murray C.J., Fennelly J.) in allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court order: That a right to legal representation did not carry with it a right to State funded legal aid. None of the cases relied upon by the respondent supported her claim to an entitlement under the Constitution to State funded legal aid beyond the circumstances identified in The State (Healy) v Donoghue [1976] I.R. 325 (where the liberty of an individual was in issue before the Criminal Courts), nor did they support an entitlement to State funded legal aid in connection with an inquest. An inquest was an inquisitorial process, it was a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt or establishing civil liability. There was no constitutional right in a person entitled to attend before and be represented at an inquest to State funded legal representation.

Reporter: P.C

CORONERS ACT 1962

CONSTITUTION ART 38

HEALY, STATE v DONOGHUE & ORS 1976 IR 325

O, STATE v DALY 1977 IR 312

K SECURITY LTD & KAVANAGH v IRELAND & AG UNREP GANNON 15.7.1977 1977/5/886

CONDON v CIE & ORS UNREP BARRINGTON 16.11.1984 1985/1/52

C (M) v LEGAL AID BOARD & ORS 1991 2 IR 43 1991/11/2681

CORCORAN v MIN FOR SOCIAL WELFARE & ORS 1991 2 IR 175 1992 ILRM 133 1991/8/1761

BYRNE v JUDGE SCALLY & DUBLIN CORP UNREP O CAOIMH 12.10.2000 2000/3/1065

MALOCCO v DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL UNREP CARROLL 16.10.2002 2002//3861

MCBREARTY v JUDGE MORRIS UNREP PEART 13.5.2003 2003/39/9373

A (A) v MEDICAL COUNCIL UNREP O CAOIMH 28.4.2003 2003/1/1

STEVENSON v LANEY & ORS UNREP LARDNER 10.2.1993 1993/5/1430

KIRWAN v MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1994 2 IR 417 1994 1 ILRM 444 1993/12/3851

O'DONOGHUE v LEGAL AID BOARD & ORS 2006 4 IR 204 2004/38/8872 2004 IEHC 413

MCKEOWN, STATE v SCULLY 1986 IR 524 1986 ILRM 133 1985/6/1392

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (LEGAL AID) ACT 1962 S2(1)

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921

CONSTITUTION ART 40.3

REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT 1871

FORREST v LEGAL AID BOARD & ORS UNREP O'HANLON 4.12.1992 1993/2/530

JUDICIAL SEPARATION & FAMILY LAW REFORM ACT 1989

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT 1964

CIVIL LEGAL AID ACT 1995 S5

MCCAULEY v MIN FOR POSTS & TELEGRAPHS 1966 IR 345

CONSTITUTION ART 40

MCCANN & ORS v UNITED KINGDOM 1996 21 EHRR 97

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 2.1

1

Judgment of Mr Justice Finnegandelivered on the 28th day of July 2009

2

Judgment delivered by Finnegan J [nemdiss]

3

Paul Magee ("the deceased") died on the 26 th December 2002. He was nineteen years of age. He had been arrested by Gardai for public order offences at the home of a friend where he was displaying signs suggestive of paranoid delusions. He was taken to Kilmainham Garda Station where he was handcuffed and placed in a cell. Shortly afterwards he was found to be in an unconscious state. He was taken by ambulance to St. James's Hospital where following attempts to resuscitate him he was pronounced dead. A post mortem was carried out by the Assistant State Pathologist, Dr. Marie Cassidy, on the 27 th December 2002. Toxicological examination showed recent use of cocaine. Dr. Cassidy's ultimate conclusion was that the death was consistent with cocaine related collapse. The respondent in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim pleads as follows:-

4

2 "6. Serious questions arise concerning the deceased's death at a time when he was being kept in involuntary custody including questions asto the extent to which the State or its agents were responsible through gross negligence or otherwise for the death of the deceased. The plaintiff and the family of the deceased have not been kept adequately apprised of developments and/or informed of the results of investigations and/or consulted in the context of investigations. Moreover the plaintiff has not been advised of a cause of death."

5

The respondent's concerns are amplified somewhat by the submissions made in this court. It is submitted that serious questions arise concerning the deceased's death while in custody as to the treatment of the deceased and the speed with which medical intervention was sought. Underlying these concerns may be the circumstance that the deceased had a history of previous convictions including convictions for assaulting Gardai. Further the post-mortem examination showed widely scattered surface bruising and minor injuries without any significant internal trauma and which injuries could have occurred in a minor scuffle. These injuries would not normally be expected to cause or contribute to death especially as there was no evidence of any internal trauma of any significance.

6

An inquest was scheduled to commence on the 12 th February 2004. The plaintiff sought legal representation in respect of the inquest but was advised that there was no publicly funded provision for legal aid for an inquest. The present proceedings were instituted and because of this the inquest has not yet taken place and no death certificate recording the cause of death has issued.

7

While the statement of claim prays several reliefs it was accepted by counsel for the parties before the High Court that the only issue was whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the provision by the State of publicly funded legalrepresentation at the inquest to be held into the death of the deceased. There was no oral evidence in the High Court the material circumstances having been agreed between the parties. It was accepted by the appellant that the plaintiff does not have the necessary financial means to secure appropriate legal representation at the inquest.

8

The learned trial judge found in favour of the respondent in the following terms:-

"Having regard to the fact that the coroner presides over the relevant inquest and his role is judicial in nature, that the inquest of itself is inquisitorial and that a jury will record a verdict, it appears reasonable to come to the conclusion, applying the rationale of Kelly J. in O'Donoghue v The Legal Aid Board and Lardner J. in Stevenson v Landy & Others and Kirwan v Minister for Justice, that, due to the unfortunate circumstances of the plaintiff in the present case and the fact that her son's death occurred within a very short period of time of him becoming unconscious while in the custody of An Garda Siochána, fair procedures under the Constitution require that she be provided with legal aid for the purpose of being adequately represented at the forthcoming inquest into her son's death."

9

The order of the court required the second, third and fourth named defendants to provide publicly funded legal representation to the plaintiff in respect of the inquest. The first named respondent took no part in the proceedings in the High Court or in this court.

10

In the High Court the defendant's case revolved around two issues namely:-

11

(a) Whether the State is in law required to provide the plaintiff with State publicly funded legal aid or assistance and so that she could attend at and participate in the inquest held into her son's death.

12

(b) Whether in the circumstances of this case and insofar as they are known or ascertained at this point, an inquest commenced under and in accordance with the provisions of the Coroners Act 1962 satisfies the State's duty to vindicate the right to life of the deceased and the State's related or ancillary duty to provide an effective independent mode of investigation or inquiry into the circumstance of the deceased's death.

13

Following discussion between the learned trial judge and counsel the respondent proceeded on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Byrne v an Taoiseach and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 9 September 2010
    ... ... ] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 WLR 807, Brecknell v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 42, Lelimo v Minister for Justice [2004] IEHC 165, [2004] 2 IR 178 , Magee v Farrell [2005] IEHC 388, (Unrep, Gilligan J, 26/10/2005), D v Residential Institutions Redress Review Committee [2008] IEHC 350, (Unrep, Ó Néill ... ...
  • Lawlor & Lawlor v Geraghty
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 May 2010
    ... ... ) v HM CORONER FOR WESTERN SOMERSET 2004 2 AC 182 2004 2 WLR 800 2004 2 AER 465 MAGEE v FARRELL & ORS UNREP GILLIGAN 26.10.2005 2005/37/7652 2005 IEHC 388 MCKEOWN, STATE v SCULLY ... ...
  • C.M.W. v S.J.F.
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 30 July 2019
    ...The matter of the existence of a constitutional right to civil legal aid was considered by the Supreme Court in Magee v. Farrell [2009] 4 I.R. 703 where the plaintiff contended she had a constitutional right to legal aid in relation to an inquest. Finnegan J. in his judgment considered tha......
  • Health Service Executive (HSE) v A (O)
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 12 April 2013
    ...14.4.2010 [TRANSCRIPT NOT AVAILABLE] SINNOTT v MIN FOR EDUCATION 2001 2 IR 545 D (T) v MIN FOR EDUCATION 2001 4 IR 259 MAGEE v FARRELL 2009 4 IR 703 LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND v COMPETITION AUTHORITY 2006 2 IR 262 HENEHAN v ALLIED IRISH BANKS UNREP FINLAY 19.10.1984 1985/2/279 PRACTICE AND PR......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Oversight of Prison Conditions and Investigations of Deaths in Custody: International Human Rights Standards and the Practice in Ireland
    • United States
    • Prison Journal, The No. 91-1, March 2011
    • 1 March 2011
    ...or a barrister.9 Their involvement is, however, often limited due to lack of legal aid in inquest proceedings (Magee v. Farrell and ors, 2009, IESC 60) and limita-tions on disclosure of certain categories of documents that are available to the The 2004 Act makes no provision for the involve......
  • The Death of Socio‐Economic Rights
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 74-4, July 2011
    • 1 July 2011
    ...in the composition of the governmenthas not resulted in any dis-cernible shift in the viewpoint of the Supreme Court, see: Magee vFarrell [2009] IESC 60 in whichthe Supreme Courtde¢ nitivelyrejected the notion that the Constitution guaranteed the right tocivil legal aid for indigent litigan......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT