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

APPENDICES(B)Mr. Thomas Francis Greene vDr. Kieran McLoughlin,Coroner for Galway West.Mr. Thomas Francis Greene vDr. Kieran McLoughlin,Coroner for Galway West.Supreme Court 1990 No. 16(Hamilton CJ, O’Flaherty and Blayney JJ)26 January 1995Mr. Vivian Greene died on 10 May 1988 as a resultof suffering a single gunshot wound to the head.An inquest into the death was held by theCoroner for Galway West, who sat with a jury.Despite objections from the solicitor acting for thedeceased’s family, the deceased’s doctor gaveevidence to the effect that he had been sufferingfrom severe depression. Because she was unfit toattend, a statement from the deceased’s motherwas read at the inquest. In it she said that Mr.Greene had gone into the toilet at the familyhome in order to clean a rifle, there had been anoise and when she entered the toilet she foundhim bleeding from the forehead and in a sittingposition. A garda officer testified that the riflewould discharge accidentally only if droppedvertically on to its butt. The respondent informedthe jury that they could not bring in a verdict ofsuicide. Instead they would have to bring in oneof four possible verdicts: (i) Death due todischarge from a rifle in accordance with medicalevidence; (ii) Death due to discharge from rifle inaccordance with medical evidence while balanceof mind disturbed; (iii) Death due to dischargefrom rifle self-inflicted while balance of minddisturbed; (iv) Death due to discharge from rifleoccurring accidentally. The jury returned a verdictin terms of the second alternative. The applicantwho was the brother of the deceased, institutedjudicial review proceedings in which he sought tohave the verdict quashed on the grounds that thecoroner had exceeded his jurisdiction undersection 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 byconsidering and investigating criminal liability andby failing to confine the inquest to ascertainingthe identity of the deceased and how, when andwhere death occurred. In the High Court, JohnsonJ. held that the coroner had exceeded hisjurisdiction. He pointed out that regardless of theway in which the question to the jury wasformulated, once the mental capacity of thedeceased was brought into question, the wholeissue as to criminal liability in respect of possiblesuicide was being investigated and considered,even though a verdict of suicide could not bebrought in because of the way in which thequestions to the jury were framed. Therespondent, the Coroner for Galway West,appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.HeldThe Supreme Court in dismissing the appeal:(1) The manner in which the respondentconducted the inquest was clearly in breach ofsection 30 of the 1962 Coroners Act. Heconsidered and investigated criminal liability, andfailed to confine the inquest to ascertaining theidentity of the deceased and to ascertaining how,where and when death occurred.(2) As no third party was involved in thedeceased’s death and suicide was a crime at thetime of the death (which was prior to theenactment of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993,the calling of evidence as to whether the guncould discharge accidentally and as to the mentalhealth of the deceased constituted consideringand investigating the question of criminal liability.This evidence was relevant solely to the question143