Morris v Farrell
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] IEHC 600 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 12 March 2004 |
[2004] IEHC 600
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 2
CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(3)
FARRELL V AG 1998 1 IR 203
MORRIS V DUBLIN CITY CORONER 2000 3 IR 592
CORONERS ACT 1962 S30
CORONERS ACT 1962 S31
CONSTITUTION ART 10.3.2
REPORT OF THE BRODERICK COMMITTEE ON DEATH CERTIFICATION & CORONERS INQUESTS (CMND 4810)
JORDAN V UK UNREP ECHR 4.5.2001
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 1
MCCANN & ORS V UK UNREP 27.9.1995 SERIES A NO 234
MCKERR V UK NO 28883/95
KELLY & ORS V UK NO 30054/96
SHANAGHAN V UK NO 37715/97 ECHR 2001-III
OGUR V TURKEY UNREP 22.5.1999 ECHR
EDWARDS V UK 14.3.2002 ECHR
KAYA V TURKEY ECHR 1998-I
IHAN V TURKEY ECHR 2000-VII
CORONERS ACT 1962 S49
R V SOUTH LONDON CORONER EX PARTE THOMPSON 1982 126 SJ 625
CORONERS ACT 1962 S31(1)
CORONERS ACT 1962 S50(1)
D (A) V IRELAND 1994 1 IR 369
R V HM CORONER AT HAMMERSMITH EX-PARTE PEACH 1980 2 AER 7 1980 1 QB 211
R V SOYTHWARK CORONER EX PARTE HICKS 1987 2 AER 140 151 JP 441
CORONERS RULES 1984 (SI 1984 NO 552) (UK) r37(3)
CORONERS RULES 1984 (SI 1984 NO 552) (UK) r37
QUINN, STATE V RYAN 1965 IR 70
EASTERN HEALTH BOARD V FARRELL 2001 4 IR 627
CORONERS ACT 1962 S31(2)
NORTHERN AREA HEALTH BOARD V GERAGHTY 2001 3 IR 321 2002 1 ILRM 36
CORONERS ACT 1962 S28
MCKEOWN, STATE V SCULLY 986 IR 524 1986 ILRM 133 1985/6/1392
R (GREEN) V POLICE COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY 2002 EWCA CIV 389
CORONERS ACT 1962 S25
CONSTITUTION ACT 40.3.2
Judicial review - Certiorari - Disclosure - Coroners Act, 1962 Whether the respondent was obliged to furnish to the applicants at the time of the inquest documentation relating to the death of their son.
Facts This application relates to an inquest into the death of the applicants' son who was shot dead by members of An Garda Siochana. The applicants unsuccessfully requested the release of copies of all statements on file including witness statements and any documents giving information relating to the circumstances of the death of their son. A further application was made on behalf of the applicants at the hearing of the inquest seeking the furnishing of the documentation. The respondent refused to furnish the documentation sought and accordingly the applicants withdrew from the inquest and it proceeded in their absence. Consequently, the applicants sought an order of certiorari of the decision of the respondent that he was not legally in a position to release statements which were taken pursuant to the garda investigation and which were in his possession. The applicants also sought an order of certiorari of the verdict and/or order of the inquest into the death of their son.
Held by O Caoimh J. in refusing the application:
1. That the applicants engaged in a premature withdrawal from the inquest and accordingly could not show that they had been prejudiced by the actions of the respondent in refusing to furnish the documentation sought.
2. That the applicants did not establish that the failure to furnish the documentation sought, which was subsequently furnished in the context of these proceedings, resulted in a failure to carry out an effective, fair and independent investigation into the death of their son and accordingly a failure to vindicate his right to life.
Reporter: L. O'S.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh delivered the 12th day of March, 2004.
By order of this court (O'Donovan J.) made on 24 th September, 2001, the applicants were given leave to apply by way of an application for judicial review for the relief of:-
1. An order of certiorari of the decision of the respondent made on 27 th June, 2001, that the respondent as coroner was not legally in a position to release statements (or copies thereof) which were taken pursuant to a garda investigation into the fatal shooting of John Morris and which were in his possession.
2. An order of certiorari of the verdict and/or order in the inquest into the death of John Morris made on 28 th June, 2001, at Dublin City Coroner's Court.
The grounds upon which the applicant was given leave are as follows:-
1. That the respondent erred in law and exceeded his jurisdiction in ruling that he could not legally permit the release to the applicants and their legal representatives of the statements or copies thereof, which were taken pursuant to a garda investigation into the fatal shooting of Mr. John Morris, which were in his possession.
2. That the respondent's above order was in breach of natural justice and fair procedures.
3. That the respondent exceeded his jurisdiction by not giving sufficient or any regard to the position of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, as indicated by counsel appearing on their behalf, that they would have no difficulty in such documentation being made available to the legal representatives of the applicants.
4. That the respondent in deciding not to release the said documentation to the applicants prejudiced the ability of the applicants (as properly interested persons) and their legal representatives in exercising their right to participate in the inquest, including the cross-examination of witnesses, in a fair and effective manner.
5. That the respondent failed to adequately or sufficiently disclose the witness statements prior to the commencement of the inquest and thereby prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest.
6. By reason of the above matters the respondent conducted an inquest which was vitiated having regard to the provisions of article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Certiorari by way of Judicial Review:-
1. The grounds relied upon (at paragraph 1 above) are repeated mutatis mutandis as grounds upon which an order of certiorari by way of judicial review is sought of the verdict and/or order of the Inquest.
2. That the hearing of the inquest was in breach of natural justice and fair procedures.
3. That the said decision of the respondent not to release the documentation and the consequences of same for the participation of the legal representatives for the applicants in the inquest, resulted in an unfair hearing.
4. That the applicants, as properly interested persons, were denied a fair and effective participation in the hearing of the inquest.
5. That the inquest was flawed due to being an inadequate and insufficient inquiry.
6. That the respondent failed to adequately or sufficiently disclose the witness statements prior to the commencement of the inquest and thereby prejudiced the ability of the applicants to participate in the inquest.
The application is grounded upon the affidavit of Gregory F. O'Neill, solicitor. He states that in September of 1997 he was initially contacted by the applicants in relation to the death of their son, John Morris, who was aged twenty six and who had been shot by members of An Garda Síochána on 4 th June, 1997, whilst he was involved in the commission of an armed robbery of the Newspread Offices at Goldenbridge Industrial Estate, Inchicore, in the City of Dublin and who died of his injuries on the following day, the 5 th June, 1997. The applicants were concerned with regard to rumours that they had heard that their son had been fired upon by the Gardaí on at least two occasions and had been wounded; that he had been lying on the ground when he received a fatal gun-shot wound to the back of the head. Mr. O'Neill states that his clients had no idea as to the detail of what had happened but were clearly deeply concerned at the rumours they had heard surrounding the circumstances of the shooting.
Mr. O'Neill says that the applicants subsequently instructed him to represent and advise them in relation to the matter. His instructions indicated that the circumstances of the fatal shooting of the deceased required a full and fair inquiry, to be carried out in accordance with law. He states that he made some initial enquiries on behalf of the applicants and learned that the inquest into their son's death would be listed for mention on 6 th November, 1997. He states that on the 4 th November, 1997, he wrote to the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána and to Detective Superintendent McLoughlin of the Serious Crime Task Force, asking for copies of all garda statements and eye witness statements, and to the respondent seeking a copy of the postmortem report. He indicates that the Commissioner replied to him by letter dated 11 th November, 1997, stating that it was necessary that the information gathered in the course of a criminal investigation remain confidential, and therefore could not accede to his request.
On 16 th April, 1998, he again wrote to Chief Superintendent O'Sullivan of the Office of the Garda Commissioner, seeking the relevant papers and documents and pointing out that the garda inquiry into the commission of the offences which gave rise to the circumstances in which the late Mr. Morris suffered fatal injuries had then concluded. He states that on 23 rd April, 1998, he received a letter in reply dispatched on 22 nd April, 1998, indicating that he could apply to the respondent under s. 29 (3) of the Coroners Act, 1962. Mr. O'Neill states that this provision only applies to documents, such as depositions, and reports taken at an inquest and verdicts of inquests, subsequently preserved by a coroner, and therefore had no relevance to his application.
Mr. O'Neill states that on 24 th April, 1998, he wrote to the respondent seeking copies of all statements on file including witness statements and any documents giving information touching the circumstances of the death of the late Mr. Morris. On 28 thApril, 1998, a telephone call was received from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v Farrell
...file which has been passed to the Coroner. This issue has been considered but not determined by the courts. 77 In Morris v. Farrell [2004] IEHC 600, the applicant had sought the Book of Evidence which the gardaí had provided to the coroner. The coroner believed that the Book of Evidence had......
-
Louis J. O'Regan Ltd v Jeremiah O'Regan and Others
...or could reasonably be said to account for or excuse the delay, in this regard the defendants cited O' Connor v. John Player & Sons Ltd [2004] 3 JIC 1201. 100 73. It was also submitted that whilst a litigant acting through a solicitor must to an extent be vicariously liable for the activity......