Northern Area Health Board v Geraghty

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice Kelly
• Judgment Date: 20 July 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] IEHC 109
• Date: 20 July 2001
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2000 No. 632

NORTHERN AREA HEALTH BOARD v. GERAGHTY (DUBLIN CORONER) & O'REILLY

JUDICIAL REVIEW

BETWEEN

NORTHERN AREA HEALTH BOARD

APPLICANT

AND

CIARAN GERAGHTY CORONER FOR THE COUNTY OFDUBLIN

RESPONDENT

AND

MICHAEL O'REILLY

NOTICE PARTY

[2001] IEHC 109

No 632 JR/2000

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Coroner

Coroner; deceased died at hospital managed and controlled by applicant; respondent, after considering request by deceased's daughter, decided to hold an inquest for purposes of allaying rumours and suspicions; whether respondent misapplied discretion or acted ultra vires; applicant contends respondent purported to extend his inquiry to the standard of care afforded to deceased while in care of applicant in a manner which had been unfair, unreasonable and in breach of natural justice; whether on the evidence applicant prejudiced by such alleged shortcomings; s. 30, Coroners Act, 1962.

Held: Application dismissed.

Northern Area Health Board v. Geraghty - High Court: Kelly J. - 20/07/2001 - [2001] 3 IR 321 - [2002] 1 ILRM 367

The respondent was a coroner in County Dublin and had decided to carry out an inquest into the death of a patient at a hospital. The applicant brought judicial review proceedings protesting at the decision to hold an inquest and objecting to the manner it was being held. The applicant also objected to the admission of evidence from the deceased's daughter. Mr. Justice Kelly held that the respondent was entitled to hold an inquest to allay rumours or suspicions. A coroner must have a certain amount of latitude and discretion in investigating the cause of death. The respondent could not be said to be acting ultra vires the provisions of the Coroners' Act, 1962. The application would be dismissed.

Citations:

CORONERS ACT 1962 S30

CORONERS ACT 1962 S31

FARRELL V AG 1998 1 IR 203

R V SOUTH LONDON CORONER EX-PARTE THOMPSON 1982 1 26 SJ 625

REPORT OF THE BRODERICK COMMITTEE ON DEATH CERTIFICATION & CORONERS INQUEST CMND 4801 (UK)

MORRIS V DUBLIN CITY CORONER 2001 1 ILRM 125

CORONERS ACT 1962 S50(1)

GREENE V MACLOUGHLIN UNREP BLAYNEY 26.1.1995 1995/2/798

EASTERN HEALTH BOARD V FARRELL 2000 1 ILRM 446

R V HM CORONER FOR NORTH HUMBERSIDE & SCUNTHORPE EX-PARTE JAMIESON 1995 2B 1

1 Justice Kellydelivered the 20th day of July, 2001.

INTRODUCTION

2 Rosaleen O'Reilly (the deceased) died on the 25th February, 2000. Her death occurred at St Ita's Hospital, Portrane, Co Dublin which was managed and controlled by the applicant. The deceased had been admitted to that hospital as a patient on the 18th January, 2000. She had a previous history of psychiatric illness for a period in excess of 10 years. At the time of her death she had just turned sixty seven years ofage.

3 An autopsy was carried out by a consultant pathologist following her death. His conclusion was that her death was due to acutebronchopneumonia.

4 Initially it was not the intention of the respondent to conduct an inquest into the death of the deceased. He was however, contacted by the deceased's daughter CarmelKitching-O'Reilly who drew specific matters to his attention. He requested Ms Kitching-O'Reilly to convey her concerns to him in writing. She did so and as a result he decided that it would be appropriate to hold an inquest for the purposes of allaying rumours and suspicions having regard to these concerns of the deceased's daughter.

5 The applicant was served with a notice of intention to open an inquest at Tallaght Courthouse on the 17th October, 2000 at 10.00 am. The notice requested copies of medical reports from the applicant.

6 On the 26th September, 2000 the applicant, through its solicitors, wrote to the respondent seeking confirmation of the personnel required to attend the inquest and copies of the statements of evidence intended to be adduced thereat together with a copy of a toxicology report prepared by the State laboratory. No response was received to that letter.

7 The inquest commenced on the 17th October, 2000 and it is as a result of what transpired there that this judicial review application comesabout.

THE INQUEST

8 The conduct of the inquest was of course governed by the provisions of the Coroners Act, 1962. Accordingly, it had to be confined to determining the identity of the deceased and how, when and where her death occurred. (see section 30 of the Coroners Act, 1962). In addition questions of civil or criminal liability were expressly prohibited from being considered or investigated at the inquest. The inquest is entitled to make recommendations of a general character designed to prevent further fatalities and such recommendations can be appended to the verdict. (see section 31 of the Coroners Act, 1962).

9 The first witness called at the inquest was a police officer who testified that at 4.30 am on the 25th February, 2000 she was called to St Ita's Hospital as a result of a sudden death. On arrival she met with the daughter of the deceased and the deceased's husband (theNotice Party). There were no visible marks on the body of the deceased. However, the deceased's daughter expressed to the police officer concerns as to how the deceased had died.

10 The second witness called was Ms Kitching-O'Reilly the deceased's daughter. A statement made by her was read to the court by the police officer. That statement recited that the deceased had attended the hospital on the 18th January, 2000 for respite care. It went on to state that the witness arrived at the hospital at 4.00 am on the 25th February, 2000 and identified the body of the deceased to the policeofficer.

11 At that point the respondent asked the police officer whether there was a further statement made by the deceased's daughter. The police officer then commenced to read out the second statement which had been prepared by Ms Kitching-O'Reilly. This was a lengthy statement which for the most part recites the history of the deceased as known to the deponent from the time that she entered St Ita's Hospital on the 18th January, 2000. It concludes with an expression of deep dissatisfaction at the attitude and level of care by some of the staff at St Ita's Hospital concerning the deceased.

12 The applicant contends that until the second statement was mentioned in court neither it nor its legal advisers had been informed by the respondent of the existence of it or of its contents. This was so notwithstanding the fact that the statement was dated fourteen days prior to the inquest.

13 When the nature of the second statement became apparent it led to an exchange between counsel appearing for the applicant and the respondent. Counsel objected to the admission of the statement. He did so on the grounds that the purpose of the inquiry was to determine the proximate medical cause of death and that the matters rehearsed in the statement appeared to go beyond the scope of such an inquiry and into the realm of an investigation of civil liability. The respondent countered on the basis that it had been put to him that a lack of care may have caused the death of the deceased and that if so it was hisduty to hear what had to be said with regard to the care that the deceased received. Apparently the statement had not been fully read at that stage, but in the light of the respondent's ruling the remainder of it was read and the deponent was questioned both by the respondent, counsel for the family of the deceased and by counsel for the applicant. In the course of this questioning it is said it became apparent that evidence would be required from a nurse employed by the hospital. Before the questioning was completed therefore, the coroner adjourned the proceedings until the 14th November, 2000.

14 The respondent gives a somewhat different version of events. He points out that the deceased died within one and a half hours of appearing to be ill. This, he says, was a very sudden death and one that caused great distress both to the deceased's daughter and the notice party together with other members of her family. Allegations had been made to him that there was a lack of care and he took the view that he was required to look at them. He has sworn to the fact that he was not inquiring into the standard of care at St Ita's Hospital, Portrane, but was merely seeking to establish the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. In order to do that, he said, it was necessary to have some picture of her last weeks in hospital.

15 The nurse, who did not appear on the day of the inquest, has been identified as Angela Roseingrove. She had furnished a statement to the respondent prior to the inquest. She was not mentioned in court by the respondent but simply as a nurse. It was counsel for the applicant who raised her name and indicated that she was not present although she had been directed to attend. It was as a result of the non-attendance of that nurse that the respondent considered it appropriate to adjourn the inquest to afford her an opportunity to attend. It is clear from the statement made by this nurse that she is dealing with matters which occurred two days prior to the death of the deceased. She was not on duty at the time of death nor did she deal with the matters which occurred within one and a half hours of thedeath taking place. She was however, a person against whom the deceased's daughter made complaint. The statement was taken from her by a police officer on the 12th October, 2000. The respondent says that the applicant cannot have been in any doubt as to the purpose of the inquest. This is to controvert an allegation made in the applicant's grounding affidavit indicating that the applicant had attended court with a view to assisting the coroner in determining the proximate medical cause of death and had not anticipated a wide-ranging inquiry into the system of care being provided at the hospital. The respondent says that he is not in any way involved in inquiring into the standard of care at the...