Check against Delivery
The need for reform of the inquest process (a) of a homicide situation to ensure that the views of the victim’s family are recognised during the process and (b) the need for an avenue of complaint where there are genuine concerns around the management of any inquest and the outcome of that inquest
- Deputy Dara Calleary
Response by Minister of State Brian Hayes on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD
On behalf of the Minister, who unfortunately cannot be here, I wish to thank Deputy Calleary for raising these matters and I appreciate the concerns that are involved.
As the Deputy will be aware, the relevant circumstances are linked to a very tragic set of events which occurred in 2009 and resulted in the death of two persons. The Minister is very conscious of the fact that these deaths have impacted significantly on the families concerned and this is, of course, fully understandable.
In relation to inquests generally, the primary legislation currently applicable to coroners, the Coroners Act 1962, specifically prohibits the consideration or investigation of any question of civil or criminal liability at an inquest. In that regard it is a requirement that the inquest must be confined to ascertaining the identity of the person in relation to whose death the inquest is being held and how, when and where the death occurred.
With regard to the holding of an inquest the position is that under the 1962 Act a coroner is a statutory officer exercising quasi-judicial functions, in relation to which he or she is independent. Accordingly, a coroner is responsible for the holding of an inquest and for conducting the inquest. In that regard it is not open to the Minister or his Department to intervene in relation to a particular case.
However, the courts have ruled that they have the capacity to determine whether a coroner may have exceeded his or her jurisdiction in respect of a specific inquest. Within that framework an application for a judicial review may be made if it is considered that there has been a defect in the conduct of an inquest or in its conclusions.
The circumstances linked to the case referred to by the Deputy are undoubtedly complex and it would not be appropriate to enter into a discussion in relation to them. That being said, I might mention that these circumstances have led to judicial review proceedings which were initiated against the Minister for Justice and Equality, and against the Attorney General. In the event, the proceedings were not successful and, given the background involved, the State did not seek to recoup its costs.
No doubt the Deputy will recall that the Coroners Bill 2007 was restored to the Order Paper in 2011. The Bill provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the law relating to coroners and it makes provision for the recognition of the views of a victim’s family.
In particular, section 36 of the Bill provides that the coroner is required to inform the family of the deceased person, or such interested person as the coroner considers appropriate, of a range of matters relating to the investigation of the death. The coroner is required, insofar as is practicable, to keep such persons informed of the progress and conclusion of the investigation.
The current position in relation to the Coroners Bill is that it is being reviewed within the Department of Justice and Equality. This is a process that will be completed as quickly as possible and the Deputy can be assured that the concerns he has raised will be taken into account in the course of the review.
13 March 2014
ENDS