Ramsayer v Mahon Acting Coroner for the County of Offaly
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr.Justice Roderick Murphy |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] IEHC 70 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 23 April 2004 |
[2004] IEHC 70
THE HIGH COURT
AND
Citations:
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 2
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 13
CONSTITUTION ART 40.1
RSC O.84 r20(7)(b)
CORONERS ACT 1962 S30
CORONERS ACT 1962 S29
FARRELL CORONERS:PRACTICE & PROCEDURE 2000 S372
CORONERS ACT 1962 S17
CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(1)
CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(2)
CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(3)
FARRELL V AG 1998 1 IR 203
ANISMINIC LTD V FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION 1968 2 QB 862 1969 2 AC 147
HOLLAND, STATE V KENNEDY 1977 IR 193
CONSTITUTION ART 40.2
KAYA V TURKEY 1999 28 EHRR 1
YASA V TURKEY 1999 28 EHRR 121
EDWARDS V UK 2002 35 EHRR 19
JORDAN V UK 2003 37 EHRR 2
R V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT EX PARTE AMIN 2003 4 AER 1264
NOLAN V IRISH LAND COMMISSION 1981 IR 23
CORONERS ACT 1962 S31(1)
R V SOUTH LONDON CORONER EX PARTE THOMPSON 1982 126 SJ 625
EASTERN HEALTH BOARD V FARRELL 2001 4 IR 627
NORTHERN AREA HEALTH BOARD V GERAGHTY 2001 3 IR 321 2002 1 ILRM 36
MCKEOWN, STATE V SCULLY 1984 ILRM 133
JORDAN V UK 2001 11 BHRC 1
CORONERS ACT 1962 S31
Judicial review - Inquest - Depositions - Declarations - Constitutional rights - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Legitimate expectation - Coroners Act, 1962 - Whether the respondent was entitled to refuse to furnish the applicant with draft depositions or other relevant information in his possession in advance of the inquest.
Facts: The applicant was the sister of James Goonan, (the deceased) who died on 11 March, 2002. In respect of that death the respondent proposed to hold an inquest. Subsequently, the applicant required draft depositions from the respondent, which were refused. However, the respondent did furnish the applicant with a copy of the post mortem report in relation to her brother’s death. On 6 February, 2003 Mr Justice McKechnie, in the High Court granted the applicant leave for judicial review and a stay on the holding of the inquest. The applicant was granted leave to seek amongst other reliefs, a declaration that the respondent erred in law in holding that he could only release draft depositions when they had been sworn by their deponents at the inquest. The applicant also sought declarations that the respondent's ’going refusal to disclose to the applicant the draft depositions and other relevant information breached her constitutional rights and also was contrary to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The respondent filed opposition papers in which it was stated that the coroner did not operate a blanket policy of not supplying information to interested parties in advance of an inquest. It stated that in each case the respondent exercised his discretion as to what information is appropriate to furnish to any interested parties and is entitled to exercise such discretion. He did not err in law.
Held by Murphy J. in refusing the application:
1. That the applicant sought to expand the role of the coroner’s inquest from the statutory requirement of section 30 of the 1962 Act which, confined the respondent’s role to ascertaining the identity of the deceased person and ascertaining how, when and where the death occurred.
2. That the respondent had not breached the Convention by failing to furnish to the applicant the depositions sought. The authorities sited by the applicant in support of this argument were distinguished on the basis that they related to investigations of deaths that had resulted from the use of force, or were deaths which involved the State or deaths that occurred in prison at the hand of other inmates. The common thread in those cases was the State or emanations thereof and documents held or generated by or on their behalf. Accordingly, there were compelling reasons in those cases that were not present in this case which entitled the next of kin to discovery and inspection of those documents.
Kaya v. Turkey [1999] 28 E.H.R.R. 1, Yasa v Turkey [1999] 28 E.H.R.R. 121, Edwards v. United Kingdom [2003] 35 E.H.R.R. 19, Jordan v. United Kingdom [2003] 37 E.H.R.R. 2 and R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Amin [2003] U.K.H.L. 51 distinguished.
3. That the respondent had a discretion as to whether draft depositions taken from proposed witnesses should have been provided to the applicant. The depositions remained unsigned and unsworn at the time of the request of the applicant and accordingly they had no standing at that time. The respondent was entitled to make a distinction between the expert report of the pathologist and the statements of fact. It was highly inappropriate for the applicant to have demanded all information, including the garda investigations.
4. That the procedures under the Coroners Act were not adversarial but inquisitorial. The prior release of documents could convert the coroner’s fact finding exercise into adversarial litigation. An inquisitorial procedure whose verdict cannot impose civil or criminal liability of any sort on any person, such as an inquest procedure did not require full disclosure in advance of the hearing. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant was prejudiced by the absence of disclosure of the depositions of proposed witnesses.
Reporter: L.O’S.
Judgment of Mr.Justice Roderick Murphy dated the 23rd day of April, 2004.
Nuala Ramsayer, the applicant herein, is the sister of James Goonan, (the deceased) who died on the 11 th March, 2002. In respect of that death Brian Mahon, the Acting Coroner, proposed to hold an inquest.
The applicant requested draft depositions from the coroner which were refused. In respect of this refusal the applicant sought a declaration that the coroner erred in law when he held that he could only release draft depositions when they had been sworn by the deponents at the inquest.
2. The relevant dates of events and correspondence between the applicant's solicitor and the respondent are set out hereunder.
11 th March, 2002 — death of deceased.
21 st May, 2002 - request for date of post mortem.
23 rd May, 2002 - reply: no decision had been made.
28 th May, 2002 - request for information of developments.
5 th July, 2002 - request for post mortem report.
8 th July, 2002 - respondent indicated that he had directed an inquest.
11 th July, 2002 - request for all information.
15 th July, 2002 - reply: the Gardaí report death not from natural causes.
17 th July, 2002 - request for Garda report and post mortem report.
18 th July, 2002 - reply: material to be retained until inquest — request for statement from applicant.
30 th July, 2002 - applicant statement declined.
8 th October, 2002 - request: garda investigation?
10 th October, 2002 - reply: no role in garda investigation.
14 th October, 2002 - inquest fixed for the 21st October, 2002.
16 thOctober, 2002 - request for witnesses and evidence.
16 th October, 2002 - reply: report of the State Pathologist.
18 th October, 2002 - request for witnesses”statements.
21 st October, 2002 - pathologist unavailable, inquest postponed.
31 st October, 2002 - request for draft depositions.
25 th November, 2002 - further request.
28 th November, 2002 - reply: draft depositions unavailable until sworn. Inquest likely in January or February, 2003.
16 th January, 2003 - inquest set for 27 th January, 2003.
6 th February, 2003 - McKechnie J. granted leave for judicial review and a stay on the holding of the inquest.
8 th April, 2003 - Opposition statement filed.
The applicant was granted leave for the following relief:
2 3.1 A declaration that the respondent erred in law when he held that he could only release draft depositions when they had been sworn by their deponents at the inquest.
3 3.2 A declaration that the respondent's ongoing refusal to disclose to the applicant draft depositions and other relevant information in his possession in advance of the inquest into the death of James Goonan was arbitrary and irrational.
4 3.3 A declaration that the respondent's ongoing refusal to disclose to the applicant draft depositions and other relevant information in his possession in advance of the inquest into the death amounted to a breach of the applicant's constitutional rights to fair procedure and natural justice, and to a breach of the right to life of James Goonan contrary to Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution insofar as the duty on the State to investigate a death that occurs in suspicious circumstances is adjectival to the right to life and was contrary to Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms in relation to the same duty. Was also a breach of the right to an effective remedy of the applicant and James Goonan, contrary to Article 13 of the same Convention insofar as the failure to disclose the information may have a basis in domestic law. Was also in breach of the applicant's right to equality, contrary to Article 40.1 of the Constitution. Was a breach of the applicant's constitutional right to effective legal assistance. Amounted to a breach of the applicant's legitimate expectations.
5 3.4 An order of mandamus directing the respondent to furnish to the applicant draft depositions and other relevant information in his possession in advance of the inquest into the death of James Goonan.
6 3.5 An order pursuant to the provisions of Order 84, rule 20 (7)(b) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v Smith
...res judicata. McCauley v. McDermott [1997] 2 I.L.R.M. 486; A.A. v. Medical Council[2003] 4 I.R. 302 andSweeney v. Bus Átha átha Cliath [2004] IEHC 70,[2004] 1 I.R. 576 applied. Cases mentioned in this report:- A.A. v. Medical Council [2003] 4 I.R. 302; [2004] 1 I.L.R.M. 372. Carl Zeiss Stif......
-
Carrickfin Trust Ltd v Forker and Others
...plaintiff estopped by conduct - Whether strike out of "balance of proceedings" rendering matter res judicata - Sweeney v Bus Átha Cliath [2004] IEHC 70, [2004] IESC 87, [2004] 1 IR 576 applied - Henderson v Henderson (1843) 2 Hare 100; Bradshaw v McMullen [1920] 2 IR 412; Trainor v McKee ......