The State (Costello) v Bofin

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeHenchy J.,GRIFFIN J.
Judgment Date21 November 1980
Neutral Citation1980 WJSC-SC 2212
CourtSupreme Court
Date21 November 1980

1980 WJSC-SC 2212

THE SUPREME COURT

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Kenny J.

No. 657 SS/1978
COSTELLO v. BOFIN
MAELISSA COSTELLO
v.
PATRICK BOFIN
1

Judgment of Henchy J.delivered the 21st November 1980 (Kenny J.agreed)???

2

Seamus Costello, a well-known political activist, was shot dead in Dublin on the 5 October 1977. Dr. Bofin, the coroner for the City of Dublin, having been notified of the fact, proceeded to observe the duty imposed on him by s. 17 of the Coroners Act, 1962("the Act")1 of holding an inquest. The inquest was commenced, and adjourned, on the 18 October 1978. Seamus Costello's widow, Maelissa (who is the prosecutrix in these certiorari proceedings against the coroner), was legally represented at the inquest. After evidence of the identity of the deceased had been given by his brother and after a Dr. P. O'Neill hadgiven evidence of the cause of death, Detective Superintendent O'Driscoll requested the coroner to adjourn the inquest, on the ground that criminal proceedings in relation to the death were being considered. S. 25(1) of the Act requires that when an application for an adjournment on those grounds is made by a member of the GardaSoch??#x3B2??na not below the rank of inspector, the coroner must grant an adjournment. The coroner did so in this case, but he made it an adjournment sine die.

3

The prosecutrix, contending that the coroner had no jurisdiction to grant an adjournment in that form, applied in the High Court for and was granted a conditional order of certiorari to quash the coroner's order of adjournment. However, when the hearing took place of her application to have that order made absolute, the conditional order was discharged and the cause shown by the coroner was allowed. It is against that order that this a peal has been taken.

4

The matter reduces itself to a question of thescope of the power of adjournment vested in the coroner by s. 25(1). This subsection must, of course, be construed in the context of the Act as a whole. S. 30 debars consideration or investigation at the inquest of questions of civil or criminal liability and confines its purpose to identifying the deceased and ascertaining how, when, and where the death occurred. The purpose of the adjournment allowed - indeed required - by s. 25(1) is to avoid the risk that the inquest may prejudice, prejudge or otherwise improperly overlap criminal proceedings, when such are under consideration. Indeed, the priority given to projected criminal proceedings (and, by s. 25(2), to criminal proceedings already instituted) may have the result that when the criminal proceedings are over, the inquest may be a mere formality.

5

Where the criminal proceedings are only at the stage of being considered, s. 25(1) says that "the coroner shall adjourn the inquest for such period as he thinks proper and shall further adjourn the inquest forsimilar periods so often as a member of the Garda Soch??#x3B2??na not below the rank of inspector requests him on the ground aforesaid so to do". This denotes the possibility of a series of adjournments. The first of these adjournments must be for such period as the coroner thinks proper. This power of initial adjournment is a power which must be exercised, and exercised judicially, that is, for a period which is consonant with the submissions or evidence on the issue of the adjournment. The Garda officer may ask for a short adjournment, or for a lengthy adjournment, depending on the nature of the case and the state of the Garda investigations. While the coroner is then required to grant an adjournment, he must grant it "for such period as he thinks proper". His discretion is thus limited, for if he were to grant an adjournment for a period which by any reasonable elasticity of judgment could not be said to be proper having regard to the submissions or the evidence, he would be acting inexcess of Jurisdiction. If, for example, he was asked for an adjournment for six months, he could not validly grant an adjournment for six years. On the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Garda Representative Association v Minister for Finance
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 March 2010
    ...BROADCASTING SERVICE) & MURPHY v MIN FOR TRANSPORT & ORS (NO 2) 1997 1 ILRM 241 1996 DULJ 139 1998/13/4403 COSTELLO, STATE v BOFIN 1980 ILRM 233 1980/12/2212 UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK v RYAN & ORS UNREP BARRON 21.2.1991 1991/6/1486 HOUSING ACT 1988 S13 IRISH NATIONALITY & CITIZENSHIP ACT 1956......
  • Farrell v Attorney General
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1998
    ...Thompson(1982) 126 S.J. 625. Reg. v. Federal Steam Navigation[1974] 1 W.L.R. 505; [1974] 2 All E.R. 97. The State (Costello) v. Bofin[1980] I.L.R.M. 233. The State (Holland) v. Kennedy [1977] I.R. 193. Judicial review - Certiorari - Power of Attorney General to direct that fresh inquest be ......
  • Ryanair Ltd v Commission for Aviation Regulation
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 11 April 2008
    ...STATE v STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642 O'KEEFFE v BORD PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 1992 ILRM 237 COSTELLO, STATE v BOFIN 1980 ILRM 233 ASHFORD CASTLE LTD v SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU) UNREP CLARKE 21.6.2006 2006/3/487 2006 IEHC 201 SMART MOBILE L......
  • Farrell v Ag
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 November 1997
    ...PLEANALA 1993 1 IR 39 MIN FOR INDUSTRY & COMMERCE v HALES 1967 IR 50 MAXWELL INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 11ED COSTELLO, STATE v BOFIN 1980 ILRM 233CORONERS ACT 1962 S49 R v SOUTH LONDON CORONER EX PARTE THOMPSON 1982 126 SJ 625 CORONERS ACT 1962 S31(1)REPORT OF THE BRODERICK COMMITTEE ON ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT