Martin v Coroner for the County of Dublin (Geraghty)
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McCarthy |
| Judgment Date | 02 October 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 443 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 02 October 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 443
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
CORONERS ACT 1962 S25
R v HM CORONER FOR SOUTH LONDON, EX PARTE THOMPSON 1982 126 SJ 625
NORTHERN AREA HEALTH BOARD v GERAGHTY (DUBLIN CORONER) & O'REILLY 2001 3 IR 321 2002 1 ILRM 367 2001/18/4883
FARRELL (DUBLIN CITY CORONER) v AG 1998 1 IR 203
MORRIS v DUBLIN CITY CORONER 2000 3 IR 592
FARRELL CORONERS: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE 2000
R v HM CORONER FOR INNER LONDON WEST DISTRICT, EX PARTE DALLAGLIO 1994 4 AER 139
ORANGE COMMUNICATIONS LTD v DIRECTOR OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION AND METEOR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD (NO 2) 2000 4 IR 159 2000/15/5538
DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD v IRELAND 1995 1 ILRM 408
R v SUSSEX JUSTICES, EX PARTE MCCARTHY 1924 1 KB 256
O'NEILL v BEAUMONT HOSPITAL BOARD 1990 ILRM 419 1989/8/2153
METROPOLITAN PROPERTIES CO (FGC) LTD v LANNON & ORS 1969 1 QB 577 1968 3 WLR 694 1968 3 AER 304
USK & DISTRICT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION v BORD PLEANALA & ORS UNREP MACMENAMIN 8.7.2009 2009 IEHC 346
BULA LTD & ORS v TARA MINES & ORS (NO 6) 2000 4 IR 412 2000/3/925
R (DONOGHUE & ORS) v JUSTICES OF COUNTY CORK 1910 2 IR 271
R (HARRINGTON) v JUSTICES OF COUNTY CLARE 1918 2 IR 116
R v ABINGDON JUSTICES 1964 108 SJ 840 1964 CRIM LR 43
MCAULEY v KEATING & ORS 1998 4 IR 138 1998/24/9412
CORONOR
Inquest
Bias - Application to restrain inquest by respondent - Relative of deceased - Deceased's family refuting suggested suicide - Applicant alleging respondent had already concluded death was straightforward prior to commencement of inquest - Applicant alleging invective shown towards his legal representatives - Adjournments - Disputes of fact - Onus of proof - "Off the record" meeting - Whether court could resolve disputes of fact - Whether bias - R v HM Coroner for Inner West London [1994] 4 All ER 139, Orange Communications Limited v Director of Telecommunications Regulation [2000] 4 IR 159, Dublin Well Woman Centre Ltd v Ireland [1995] 1 ILRM 408, R v Sussex Justices (Ex-parte McCarthy) [1924] 1 KB 256, O'Neill v Beaumont Hospital Board [1990] ILRM 419, Metropolitan Properties Company (FGC) Ltd v Lennon [1969] 1 QB 577, Usk and District Residents Association Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2009] IEHC 346 (Unrep, MacMenamin J, 08/07/2009), O'Callaghan v Mahon [2007] IESC 17 [2008] 2 IR 514, Bula Limited v Tara Mines Limited (No 6) [2000] 4 IR 412, R (Donoghue) v The Justices of County Cork [1910] 2 IR 271, R (Kingston) v The Justices of County Cork [1910] 2 IR 658, R (Harrington) v Justices of County Clare [1918] 2 IR 116, McAuley v Keating [1998] 4 IR 138 and McAuley v Keating (Unrep, O'Sullivan J, 8/7/1997) considered - Coroners Act 1962 (No 9) - Relief refused (2006/751JR - McCarthy J - 2/10/2009) [2009] IEHC 443
Martin v Geraghty
Facts: Leave to the applicant had been given to restrain the respondent coroner from taking further steps in the inquest the subject of the application. The applicant alleged that the respondent had created a reasonable impression of bias as to the determination of an inquest such as to disqualify him from playing any further part in the inquest. It was alleged that the respondent made inappropriate comments as to the nature of the death of Pamela Martin in particular in the course of a telephone conversation on 6th September 2005 and had closed his mind to submissions. The circumstances of the death had included a ligature and the issue of suicide arose in the inquest.
Held by McCarthy J. that the burden of proof was on the applicant. The respondent had disposed to his open-mindedness and that he would sit with a jury. No reasonable person would say that there was a level of invective of personal animosity so as to imply bias. A reasonable person would not consider that the words spoken on 6th September, 2005 indicated a strength of view which went beyond a mere tentative or preliminary view essential to the conduct of the work of a coroner.
Reporter: E.F.
Mr. Justice McCarthy delivered the 2nd day of October 2009.
1. On 26 th June, 2006, Peart J. gave leave to the applicant to seek, inter alia, the following relief:-
An order of prohibition by way of an application for judicial review or, in the alternative an injunction restraining, the respondent from taking any further steps in the inquest the subject matter of this application.
2. That leave was granted on the following grounds, namely:-
(7) The respondent has, as is evidenced by his conduct to date, created the impression that a reasonable apprehension of bias has been generated in the minds of the applicant and her family in relation to the manner in which it is believed that he will approach his determination of the inquest herein and he is accordingly, by reason of that conduct, as aforesaid, disqualified from having any further part to play in or on the inquest in question.
(i) The respondent has, in addition to the manner in which it is believed he will behave and proceed, so conducted himself heretofore as to clearly establish an actual bias and prejudgment of the issue to be determined and specifically in this regard has determined that the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of Pamela Martin are straightforward and are such as to not realistically trouble his office other, than to formally record the death as aforesaid.
(ii) The respondent has closed his mind to such submissions as have been advanced to the effect that the death of Pamela, Martin was anything but straightforward and has proceeded' in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. He has additionally refused to be guided and/or bound and/or act upon the facts at his disposal and specifically those facts as are available to him arising from the reports and statements prepared for him by members of An Garda Siochana.
(iii) The respondent has made inappropriate comments to the solicitor for the applicant and her family, which said comments reinforce the reasonable apprehension of bias hereinbefore complained of. The comments, to the effect that illegal narcotics were found to be present in the deceased's system coupled, as this fact was, with a mistakenly held belief of an established history of depression and attempted suicide on the part of deceased, led all but axiomatically to the inference properly and reasonably to be drawn from the comments as aforesaid that her attempt had, on this occasion succeeded and this decision arrived at in the face of other relevant and material information and evidence which as a minimum established that the deceased had been beaten badly prior to death.
(iv) The respondent, as a medical practitioner, has failed, refused and/or neglected to bring his training to bear on the facts relevant to the issues herein or if so exercised has failed refused and/or neglected to apply such expertise in a reasonable way or at all.
(v) The respondent has acted in such a fashion, purportedly relying upon the provisions of the Coroners Act 1962, as amended, so as to deny to the applicant her constitutional rights and entitlements.
(vi) The respondent has breached the constitutional rights of the applicant to fair procedures and to be treated equally before the law in the exercise of his purported powers arising under and in accordance with the provisions of the Coroners Act 1962, as amended. Additionally, the respondent has failed, refused and/or neglected to furnish material documents and information to the applicant and has deliberately, consciously and recklessly failed, refused and/or neglected to investigate material matters of which he has actual knowledge or alternatively cause them to be investigated as aforesaid
3. A notice of motion in terms of the said relief was issued on 12 th July, 2006 and, ultimately, a statement of opposition was delivered on behalf of Dr. Geraghty dated 17 th October, 2006 and beyond a number of traverses, there are a number of substantive pleas, and subject to a preliminary objection (to which I will refer, again, below). Those substantive pleas are as follows:-
13. The complaints made by the applicant in the within proceedings are premature in circumstances where the inquest the subject matter thereof has not yet concluded. The applicant has not demonstrated any prejudice by reason of the matters complained of and could not be in a position to d so until the inquest had concluded.
14. The European Convention on Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the "Convention") does not form part of domestic law and the reliance placed by the applicant directly on the provisions of the Convention is misconceived.
15. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the applicant has failed to state any grounds upon which the declaratory relief claimed in relation to a contravention of the Convention could be claimed.
16. It is denied that the Coroners Act 1962 (as amended) and as operated is and was so operated relative to the facts of the instant case as to be in contravention of the convention as alleged or at all.
17. The applicant has failed to state any grounds upon which the declaratory relief sought in relation to the unconstitutionality of the Coroners Act 1962 could be claimed.
4. With respect to the grounds of opposition at para. 18 there is an objection as to the failure of the applicant to commence these proceedings promptly: it seems to me that this plea cannot be sustained on the basis that it was at the hearing of 7 th March, 2006, that the first question of recusal arose and in correspondence thereafter and in particular a letter of 16 th June 2006. It does not appear to me that the lapse of some months from that date is fatal to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial