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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
APPENDICESof whether the deceased deliberately dischargedthe rifle and whether he was capable of doing so.(3) How death occurs in any particular case is amatter to be determined in the light of medicalscience. It is a medical question for a doctor to beanswered, if necessary, by performing a postmortemexamination. When sitting with the jurythe respondent had attempted to ascertain thecircumstances in which the deceased’s rifle wasdischarged. This was not confining the inquiryinto how death occurred, but going outside it inorder to inquire into what gave rise to thephysical injury which resulted in death.144
Page 2:
Reviewof theCORONER SERVICEReport o
Page 5 and 6:
AcknowledgmentsThe Group wish to ac
Page 7 and 8:
3 Issues and Responses . . . . . .
Page 10 and 11:
Terms of ReferenceTéarmaí Tagarth
Page 15 and 16:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYISSUES (CONT.)RESP
Page 17 and 18:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYISSUES (CONT.)RESP
Page 19 and 20:
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS3.2 THE POSI
Page 21 and 22:
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS25. As far a
Page 23 and 24:
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONSwhenever it
Page 25 and 26:
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONSfrivolous or
Page 27 and 28:
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS• producin
Page 30 and 31:
1BACKROUND AND HISTORY21
Page 32 and 33:
1. BACKROUND AND HISTORY1.1 ESTABLI
Page 34 and 35:
BACKROUND AND HISTORYcase loads var
Page 36:
BACKROUND AND HISTORYoccurring sudd
Page 40 and 41:
2. INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE AND EXPER
Page 42 and 43:
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE AND EXPERIEN
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 51 and 52:
3.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
Page 53 and 54:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESensure that cor
Page 56 and 57:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESIn order to mee
Page 58 and 59:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESRECOMMENDATIONS
Page 60 and 61:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESFig. B* Points
Page 62 and 63:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESin the context
Page 64 and 65:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESResponsibility
Page 66 and 67:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESprotection to v
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
ISSUES AND RESPONCEScycle of corone
Page 72 and 73:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESconsidered by t
Page 74 and 75:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESInquest adjourn
Page 76 and 77:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESRECOMMENDATION6
Page 78 and 79:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESthe system come
Page 80 and 81:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESIn summary, the
Page 82 and 83:
ISSUES AND RESPONCES• that the is
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESat the same lev
Page 88 and 89:
ISSUES AND RESPONCES• be in a pos
Page 90 and 91:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESEstablishing a
Page 92 and 93:
ISSUES AND RESPONCES• preparation
Page 94:
ISSUES AND RESPONCESobjectives set
Page 98 and 99:
IMPLEMENTATION• The availability
Page 100 and 101:
5APPENDICES91
Page 102 and 103: APPENDIX AGROUP AND SUBGROUP MEMBER
Page 104 and 105: APPENDIX BPUBLIC ADVERTISEMENT FOR
Page 106 and 107: APPENDICESIrish Association for Cou
Page 108 and 109: APPENDIX DGUIDE TO THE 1962 CORONER
Page 110 and 111: APPENDICESPart II - Sections 6 to 1
Page 112 and 113: APPENDICESSection Heading Sub-secti
Page 114 and 115: APPENDICESPart III - Sections 17 to
Page 126 and 127: Section1. Short title and commencem
Page 128 and 129: APPENDICESNumber 9 of 1962.CORONERS
Page 130 and 131: APPENDICESsection in like manner as
Page 132 and 133: APPENDICES(7) Where an appeal is ta
Page 134 and 135: APPENDICES14.-(1) No person shall b
Page 136 and 137: APPENDICESor misconduct or malpract
Page 138 and 139: APPENDICES(2) Whenever an inquest i
Page 140 and 141: APPENDICESpreserved by him under th
Page 142 and 143: APPENDICES38.-(1) A coroner may exa
Page 144 and 145: APPENDICES45.-An inquest which has
Page 146 and 147: APPENDICES51.-The power conferred b
Page 148 and 149: APPENDICES58.-(1) A coroner may, in
Page 150 and 151: APPENDIX FLIST OF OTHER RELEVANT LE
Page 154 and 155: APPENDICES(C)Dr. Brian Farrell, Dub
Page 156 and 157: APPENDICES(D)Mr. Denis Desmond & MC
Page 158 and 159: APPENDIX HLIST OF CORONER DISTRICTS
Page 160 and 161: APPENDICESDistrict Deaths reported
Page 162 and 163: APPENDICESNotes for assistance of R
Page 164 and 165: APPENDICESA hospital pathologist wi
Page 166 and 167: APPENDICES6.11 PROTOCOLS FOR EXAMIN
Page 168 and 169: APPENDIX KDRAFT FORM FOR INCLUSION
Page 170 and 171: APPENDICESPart II To be completed a
Page 172: 163
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?