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

APPENDICES(D)Mr. Denis Desmond & MCD ManagementServices Ltd v Mr. Cornelius Riordan,Coroner for City of Cork.Mr. Denis Desmond & MCD ManagementServices Ltd v Mr. Cornelius Riordan,Coroner for City of Cork, High Court1996/253 (Morris J) 14 July 1999This case considered the issue of whether or not acoroner enjoys absolute privilege in respect ofanything he says in the course of an inquest,irrespective of his state of mind. The case wastried as a preliminary issue to a defamationaction. The first named plaintiff, Mr. DenisDesmond is the Managing Director of the secondnamed plaintiff, MCD Management ServicesLimited who are a limited company engaged inthe business of organising and promoting rockconcerts. This company organised the Feile rockmusic festival which took place in August 1995 atPáirc Uí Chaoimh, Cork.During the course of this event, a young man Mr.Bernard Rice drowned, apparently in attemptingto gain entrance to Páirc Uí Chaoimh byswimming across the River Lee. On 15 September1995, while conducting an inquest into the deathof Mr. Rice, the defendant Mr. Riordan, theCoroner for Cork City was alleged to have spokenand published words concerning the plaintiffswhich they alleged were defamatory and forwhich they were pursuing a defamatory action.It was contended by the defendant Coroner thatthe plaintiffs were precluded from maintainingthese proceedings by virtue of the fact that thealleged statements were made in the course of hisacting as a lawfully appointed coroner andconducting a coroner’s court pursuant to the 1962Coroners Act.HeldIn his judgment Morris pointed out that theimmunity from suit enjoyed by the judiciary existsnot for the benefit of the Judge but for thebenefit of the community as a whole. Thisimmunity was necessary and desirable so that ajudge might perform his duties and functionsfreed of concern that in the course of performingthem, he might defame a third party and berequired to be answerable to that party indamages.However, as the granting of this immunity to thejudiciary imposed a limitation upon theconstitutional rights of the citizen to vindicate hisgood name, such immunity must be limited to thedegree to which its granting was necessary toenable a judge to administer the law freed of theconcern that he would be made answerable forhis actions.Morris held the following:1) The essential ingredient in the consideration ofthe matter was the state of knowledge of thejudge. Once a judge was aware of the fact that hewas exceeding his jurisdiction, and continued toact, then he ceased to be exercising his judicialfunctions and the need for the immunity ceased.A coroner appointed under the 1962 Coroners Actcould enjoy no more immunity from suit than acourt of local and limited jurisdiction.2) The duties of the coroner were "encapsulated"in section 30 of the 1962 Act which provides thatquestions of civil or criminal liability should not beconsidered or investigated at any inquest andaccordingly every inquest shall be confined toascertaining the identity of the person in relationto whose death the inquest is being held andhow, when and where the death occurred.3) A coroner enjoys absolute privilege in respectof anything that he says while he is performinghis duties as a coroner in the holding of aninquest in accordance with section 30 of theCoroners Act, irrespective of his state of mind.147