Ramseyer v Mahon

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR Justice Fennelly
• Judgment Date: 06 December 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] IESC 82
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 224 of 2004]
• Date: 06 December 2005

RAMSAYER (ORSE RAMSEYER) v MAHON (ACTING CORONER FOR OFFALY)

BETWEEN

NUALA RAMSEYER

Applicant/Appellant

and

BRIAN MAHON, Acting Coroner for the County of Offaly

Respondent/Respondent

[2005] IESC 82

Murray C.J.

Denham J.

Fennelly J.

Record No. 224/04

THE SUPREME COURT

CORONER

Inquest

Witness statements - Fair procedures - Natural justice - Inquisitorial process - Whether interested party entitled to material in advance of inquest - Prejudice - Coroners Act 1962 (No 9), ss 30 and 31 - Acess to witness statements granted (224/2004 - SC - 6/12/2005) [2005] IESC 82 - [2006] 1 IR 216

Ramseyer v Mahon

CORONERS ACT 1962 S30

NOLAN v IRISH LAND CMSN 1981 IR 23

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 2003

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL v FENNELL 2005 2 ILRM 288

CMSR OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE v HURST UNREP UK CA 25..7.2005

CORONERS ACT 1962 S29

CORONERS ACT 1962 S31(1)

FARRELL v AG 1998 1 IR 203

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

1 JUDGMENT delivered by MR Justice Fennelly on the 6th day of December 2005.

2 The Respondent (hereinafter "the Coroner") is the Acting Coroner for County Offaly. The Appellant is the sister of James Goonan, deceased, who died on 11th March 2002. She appears in these proceedings as the next of kin of the deceased and her right, as such, to participate in the inquest to be held by the Coroner is not disputed. She claims, however, that the Coroner, by denying her access to certain documents, proposes to conduct the inquest in a manner unfair to her interests.

3 The present appeal is taken against the judgment of Murphy J, in who dismissed the Appellant's application for Judicial Review of certain decisions of the Coroner.

4 The nature of the dispute between the Appellant and the Coroner emerges from correspondence, from 21st May 2002 to 16th January 2003, between the latter and the solicitors for the former.

5 To begin with, the solicitors asked for the post-mortem report, but the Coroner had not yet decided to hold an inquest and had not received the post-mortem report. It was until 8th July 2002, that the Coroner wrote stating that he had decided to hold an inquest. The Appellant's solicitors wrote on 11th July requesting "copies of all information" and a copy of the post-mortem report. The Coroner replied that the information he had received was "a report from An Garda Síochána that the deceased met his death from causes other than natural causes." He said that the post-mortem report was presented to the Coroner as a draft deposition for the inquest and that "it is not normally released to anyone until it has been given in evidence and signed at the Inquest."

6 The solicitors on 17th July asked for "copies of the Garda Síochána report and the Post Mortem report." The Coroner replied on 18th July that he "receives," presumably meaning that he normally receives, a verbal report from a Garda, usually at the scene of the accident, but that, in addition "the Garda issues a brief report to the Coroner in the form of a form C.71" and that he did not have "a garda report as such." In the same letter, the Coroner invited the Appellant to consider making a statement, an invitation which she declined, stating that she had no information as to the cause of death.

7 Following some further correspondence and after the date of the inquest had been fixed for 21st October 2002, the solicitors for the Appellant wrote on 16th October 2002 expressing concern at the fact that their requests for information had been refused. This letter contained the following, which forms the essential basis of the Appellant's justification of the need for the information:

"You are aware that we have made a number of requests to you for information concerning the death of our client's brother, James Goonan, but were refused. Our client is therefore unaware of what witnesses will be before the inquest or what evidence they will give. It is also unclear as a consequence of this whether the witnesses whom you propose to call will represent a complete list of those who are in a position to assist the inquest.

In addition, and of crucial importance to the circumstances of the death of James Goonan, no medical evidence has been furnished explaining the cause of death. This is a matter our client raised with us at the outset and that we specifically requested of you. Our client cannot avail herself of independent advice on any medical evidence in the case as it has not been made available.

Our client is most anxious to avail herself of her entitlement to participate fully in the inquest as a properly interested person, and to learn as much as possible about the circumstances surrounding the death of her brother. It is therefore vital that our client be afforded copies of all statements or draft depositions made by potential witnesses, copies of all medical reports to do with the death of James Goonan and any material in your possession that is relevant to the death of James Goonan."

8 This letter, written a mere five days before the intended hearing, emphasised the urgency of the request and reserved the right to apply for an adjournment.

9 The Coroner responded on 16th October by stating that he was exercising his discretion by furnishing "the statement of the State Pathologist (being the only technical report furnished to me." He enclosed a copy of the report of, the State Pathologist, Dr Marie Cassidy, dated 3rd July 2002. This gave the cause of death as being "haemorrhage and shock from laceration to the head," and cited alcohol and heart disease as contributory factors. The report discussed either an assault or a fall as possible causes but appeared to favour the latter.

10 The solicitors replied on 18th October reiterating their request for the other information but also stating that the Appellant was severely prejudiced so that, in its absence, she had no confidence in the proposed inquest and that neither she nor other members of her family would attend. Furthermore, the solicitors would seek Judicial Review of the Coroner's decision.

11 In the event, for reasons unconnected with the present dispute, the Coroner was unable to proceed with the inquest on 21st October. It was adjourned. In further correspondence, the Coroner took the position that the draft depositions could only be released "when they have been sworn by the deponents which occurs at the inquest itself." Subsequently, the date for the inquest was fixed anew for 27th January 2003.

12 On 23rd January 2003, the Appellant obtained leave in the High Court to seek Judicial Review of the decision of the Coroner not to release the draft depositions. In the Judicial Review, the Appellant seeks a number of declarations. However, the essence of the case is that the Coroner is acting in breach of his obligation to respect fair procedures by refusing to release the draft depositions. It is fair to say that the Appellant, although she mentions a number of factual matters of concern in her affidavit, does not claim to be in possession of any concrete information concerning the circumstances of the death of the deceased. She says that there has been a Garda investigation and that "persons have been interviewed and asked to make statements in connection with the death." She says that these statements may show that "there is another side to the story that might support the non-accidental death theory." The essence of her case is as set out in the solicitors' letter of 16th October, quoted above. She is concerned that her brother died from what the Garda Síochána described as "causes other than natural causes." She does not necessarily accept the conclusion of the State Pathologist and wishes to know, in advance of the inquest, what other evidence it is intended to call.

13 The Coroner, in his affidavit in response made essentially three points:

14 1. The draft depositions remain unsigned and unsworn up to the time of the inquest and have no standing until that time so that, in the absence of countervailing considerations he should exercise his discretion by not releasing them;

15 2. An inquest is inquisitorial in nature: the Appellant, by seeking to investigate what she calls "both sides of the story" (see references to her affidavit) is turning it into an adversarial proceeding;

16 3. Insofar as the Appellant is seeking information other than the draft depositions, this might involve disclosure of sensitive information such as scene of death and clinical photographs, which the Coroner considers should be kept under his control until the inquest.

17 Murphy J, in the High Court, dismissed the application for Judicial Review. He considered that the Appellant was seeking to expand the role of the Coroner beyond the statutory requirement of section 30 of the Coroners" Act, 1962. He emphasised that there is no lis inter partes, unlike the situation in Nolan v Irish Land Commission [1981] I.R. 23, upon which the Appellant relied. He considered that the release of documents, particularly the depositions of non-expert witnesses, might turn the inquest into adversarial litigation.

18 The Appellant has appealed against the decision of Murphy J. Mr Gerard Hogan, Senior Counsel, for the Appellant, presented a two-faceted argument at the hearing of the appeal.

19 The first head of the argument is based on the European Convention of Human Rights Act, 2003. While accepting that, following the decision of this Court in Dublin City Council v Fennell [2005] 2 I.L.R.M. 288, that Act does not have retrospective effect and that the relevant events in this case, including the commencement of the Judicial Review proceedings...