Morris v Dublin City Coroner

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Keane C.J.
• Judgment Date: 17 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IESC 24
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [1998 No. 473 J.R.; S.C. No. 235 of 1999]
• Date: 17 July 2000

[2000] IESC 24

THE SUPREME COURT

Keane C.J.

Murphy J.

Geoghegan J.

235/99

MORRIS v. DUBLIN CITY CORONER

BETWEEN:

ANNE MORRIS AND JOHN MORRIS

Applicants/Respondents

and

THE DUBLIN CITY CORONER

Respondent/Appellant

Citations:

CORONERS ACT 1962 S28

CORONERS ACT 1962 S29

FARRELL V AG 1998 1 IR 203

CORONERS ACT 1962 S50(1)

CONSTITUTION ART 34.1

REPORT OF THE BRODERICK COMMITTEE ON DEATH CERTIFICATION & CORONERS INQUESTS (CMD 4810)

GARNETT V FERRAND 6 B & C 610

CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(3)

CORONERS ACT 1962 (FORMS) REGS 1962 SI 94/1962 SCHED 3

Synopsis:

Coroner

Coroner; public inquests; members of Garda Síochána involved in fatal shooting of respondents' son; threat by subversive organisation to safety of Gardaí involved in incident had subsequently been made; appellant had acceded to application to have anonymity of individual Gardaí preserved at inquest; specifically, appellant had ruled that he would permit Gardaí to give evidence without their names being read out, that identification of weapon that fired fatal shot could be deleted from report at inquest and that Gardaí while giving evidence could be screened from public gallery; respondents had sought and obtained order of certiorari quashing appellant's rulings on basis that he had no jurisdiction to make same; whether appellant entitled to make rulings which he did because of threats to the personal security of Gardaí concerned; whether appellant entitled to conduct inquest in manner which he thinks best adapted to serve public interest, provided he complies with statutory requirements and requirements of natural justice and fair procedures; ss. 28, 29, Coroners Act, 1962.

Held: Appeal allowed; order dismissing application for judicial review granted.

Morris v. Dublin City Coroner - Supreme Court: Keane CJ., Murphy J., Geoghegan J. - 17/07/2000 - [2000] 3 IR 603 -

[2001] 1 ILRM 125

The applicants' son had been killed in an incident involving the Garda Síochána. Following the incident an inquest took place at which concerns were expressed on behalf of the Garda Síochána regarding the tendering of evidence which would identify individual gardaí. In addition it was submitted that the forensic report should not be submitted. In response the coroner made a number of rulings protecting the identity of the gardaí involved. The applicants initiated judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the rulings of the coroner. The High Court granted the orders of certiorari sought and the respondents appealed. Keane CJ, delivering judgment, held that the holding of an inquest was purely a fact finding exercise. Provided the coroner complied with the requirements of the 1962 Act he was entitled to adopt the course he had done and preserve the anonymity of the gardaí involved. The appeal would be allowed and the applicants' judicial review action would be dismissed.

1 JUDGMENT delivered the 17th day of July 2000 by Keane C.J. Nem diss

2 These proceedings arise out of the death of John Morris, the son of the applicants, who was shot on the 4th June 1997 at a premises in the Goldenbridge Industrial Estate, Inchicore and died from his injuries the following day. Members of An Garda Siochána were involved in the incident which led to his death.

3 At a sitting of the court of the respondent/appellant (hereafter "the coroner") on the 9th July 1998, counsel on behalf of the members of the Garda Siochána concerned made an application to the coroner that they should not be required to give evidence in person, as a threat to their safety had been made by a subversive organisation, namely, the INLA. It was said by counsel that the threat had been made to RTE in the first instance and that the gardaí had serious concerns for their personal safety and the safety of their families, should they be required to give evidence in person at the inquest. It was also submitted that the forensic reports on the garda weapons used should not be admitted in evidence, as this would identify the garda or gardaí who fired the fatal shot or shots. It was said that the gardaí concerned did not know who had fired the fatal shot and that there were security considerations in their not so knowing. Counsel for the applicants opposed the applications on the ground that the inquest was required to be heard in public and that the gardaí concerned should give evidence in person: they also opposed the application for exclusion of the forensic report.

4 In an affidavit sworn in these proceedings, the coroner said:-

"No question arose as to the reality of the threat made against the garda members. All counsel present (including counsel for the family) accepted that a threat was made and, in particular, counsel for the family publicly distanced the members of the family from any threat made. His statement on behalf of the family was subsequently reported in the media."

"Inspector Coburn was present at all hearings and was available if required to give evidence of the threat made. It was not deemed necessary to call him as all present accepted that a threat was made and there was no application to call evidence to that effect."

5 No affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicants in response to that affidavit nor was notice to cross examine the coroner served on behalf of the applicants. The hearing in this court proceeded, accordingly, on the basis that this was a correct account of what transpired at the sitting in question.

6 The inquest having been adjourned by the coroner to enable him to consider the submissions of counsel, he made a ruling on the 10th September 1998, which is set out at paragraph 9 of his affidavit as follows:-

7 a "(h) This deponent ruled that the gardaí concerned were material witnesses and should give evidence in person and be available for examination by the coroner and counsel. In view of the threat to the personal security of the gardaí concerned this deponent ruled that he would permit the gardaí to give evidence without their names being read out and that they be publicly identified as garda A,B,C,D,E, etc.

8 (i) The forensic report on the weapons used would have to be admitted in evidence to prove that the deceased was killed by a garda gun and not by any other weapon. The identification of the particular weapon used could, however, be deleted from the report at the inquest in the interest of the personal security of the gardaí concerned."

9 A further submission was then made by counsel for the gardaí that in the event of their being present to give evidence in person, they could be visually identified, which would also given rise to concerns as to security, and the coroner thereupon made a further ruling that the gardaí, while being present in person, could be screened from the public gallery, but be visible to the coroner, jury, legal representatives and members of the press. Counsel for the applicants having objected that he had no notice of this application, it was adjourned to enable him to...