Review of the Coroner Service - The Department of Justice and ...

APPENDIX GSUMMARIES OF RELEVANT LEGAL CASES(A)Mrs. Angela McKeown vDr. Thomas E. Scully,Coroner for Co.Louth.The State (at the prosecution of Mrs. AngelaMcKeown) v Dr. Thomas E. Scully, Coroner for Co.Louth, High Court 1984 No. 646 SS, (O’Hanlon J)29 April 1985On 14 May 1984 the prosecutor’s husband waskilled when he was struck by a train. On 2 August1984 an inquest was held in order to inquire intocircumstances surrounding the death. At theinquest, the respondent, as Coroner for CountyLouth, sat along with a jury. The verdict of theinquest, as recorded, identified the deceased asMr. Kevin McKeown, the date and place of deathwere given as "14 May 1984 - Lourdes Hospital,Drogheda" and the cause of death was recordedas "(a) Multiple Injuries (b) Accident on RailwayLine (c) Suicide". Prior to the enactment of theCriminal Law (Suicide) Act, 1993, suicide wasunlawful. The prosecutor sought to have therecord of the verdict quashed insofar as itincluded a verdict of suicide on two grounds. Firstof all, she claimed that as section 30 of theCoroners Act, 1962, provides that questions of civiland criminal liability shall not be considered orinvestigated at an inquest and that an inquestshall be confined to ascertaining the identity ofthe deceased and how, when and where deathoccurred, the Coroner and the jury exceeded thejurisdiction conferred on them. Secondly, sheargued that the deceased’s next of kin shouldhave been given notice as to the holding of theinquest so that they could be represented andmake evidence available which might have abearing on the jury’s verdict.HeldO’Hanlon J in granting an order of certiorariquashing the finding of suicide:(1) The intention behind section.30 of the 1962Act was that it should not be open to a Coroner’sjury to bring in a verdict that a named person hasunlawfully killed the deceased. By analogy itfollowed that it was not intended that it wouldbe open to the jury to find that the deceased hadbrought about his own death by suicide.(2) The failure to give the widow and the next ofkin any opportunity to be heard before themaking of the grave and damaging finding ofsuicide amounted to a departure from the rules ofnatural and constitutional justice. If they hadbeen given an opportunity they could reasonablyhave sought leave to be represented at theinquest, to have witnesses cross-examined on theirdepositions, to address the jury and to offer tomake available to the coroner further evidencewhich might be of assistance at the inquest.(3) Even assuming that the finding of suicide wasa verdict that was open to the jury, it was open tochallenge on the grounds that there wasinsufficient evidence to support it.142