The Gazette 1981

GAZETTE

CEMBER

STATUTORY

INTERPRETATION

Coroner's Act 1962 — Section 25

(I) — Coroner does not have

jurisdiction to adjourn an inquest

*sine die' but only to adjourn it for a

fixed or definite period.

Seamus Costello was shot dead in

Dublin on 5 October 1977. The City

Coroner pursuant to his obligation

under Section 17 of the Coroner's

Act 1962 proceeded to hold an

inquest. The inquest was com-

menced on 18 October 1978. After

evidence of identity and cause of

death had been given, a Garda Super-

intendent requested the Coroner to

adjourn the inquest on the grounds

that criminal proceedings in relation

to the death were being considered.

Section 25 (1) of the Act of 1962 re-

quired that when an application for

an adjournment on those grounds

was made by a member of the Garda

Siochana not below the rank of in-

spector, the Coroner had to grant the

adjournment. The Coroner did so in

this case and made it an adjourn-

ment 'sine die.'

The Prosecutrix, (who was the de-

ceased's widow) contending that the

Coroner had no jurisdiction to grant

an adjournment in this form, applied

to the High Court for and was

granted a conditional order of Cer-

tiorari to quash the Coroner's Order

of adjournment. At the hearing of the

application to have the conditional

order made absolute the conditional

order was discharged and cause

shown by the Coroner allowed. The

prosecutrix then appealed.

The Supreme Court in its

judgment (per Henchy J. with con-

curring judgment of Griffin J.) stated

that the main issue was the scope of

power vested in the Coroner by

Section 25 (1) of the Act. The

purpose of the adjournment allowed

or required by the Section was to

avoid the risk that the inquest might

prejudice, pre-judge or otherwise im-

properly overlap criminal pro-

ceedings which were under con-

sideration. Where the criminal pro-

ceedings were only at the stage of

being considered, Section 25(1) pro-

vided that the Coroner should

adjourn the inquest for such period as

he thought proper and should further

adjourn the inquest for similar

periods as often as a member of the

Garda Siochana not below the rank

of inspector requested him, on the

ground aforesaid, to do so. The

Coroner should grant such adjourn-

ment as he though proper having

regard to the submissions or evidence

before him. If it turned out that the

adjournment granted was inadequate

further adjournments might be

granted for similar periods.

Held

(per Henchy J.):

That the Coroner erred in short-

circuiting the statutory scheme of

successive adjournments each to be

for a period related to the then

existing

situation

and

instead

granting an adjournment 'sine die'

i.e. for a term without a terminal day.

The Coroner did not have the power

to adjourn the inquest for an

indefinite period reserving to himself

the power to re-open the inquest on

the basis of representations received

other than in his court. Albeit that the

Coroner was accustomed to granting

adjournments 'sine die,' the Act

could not be construed as giving him

this power: his only power and duty

under Section 25 was to adjourn for

an ascertainable spell of time.

Per

Griffin J.:

"It was submitted on behalf of the

coroner that the requirement that

the coroner shall adjourn the

inquest for such period as he

thinks proper gives to him an

unlimited jurisdiction to adjourn,

and that accordingly he may ad-

journ an inquest indefinitely. In

my opinion, this submission is not

well founded, and those words do

not give to the coroner an

unlimited jurisdiction to adjourn.

He will be limited by the nature of

the application made by the

member of the Garda Siochana,

and the adjournment must be for a

reasonable period having regard to

the evidence and the length of time

that the investigations of the

Garda Siochana are likely to take.

The purpose of the adjournment,

and the use of the words "such

period," clearly indicate that a

fixed or definite period of time is

intended. That this is so is re-

inforced by the provision for

further adjournments for similar

periods so often as the Gardai

make similar requests. This latter

requirement would be unneces-

sary if the coroner had unlimited

jurisdiction to adjourn the inquest

'sine die' in the first instance.

In my opinion, therefore, the

coroner does not have jurisdiction

under Section 25 (1) of the Act to

adjourn the inquest 'sine die,' but

must adjourn it for a certain or de-

finite period."

The case of

Reg. v. the Coroner of

Margate

(1865) 11 L.T. 707, con-

sidered Maelissa Costello v. Patrick

Bofin — Supreme Court (per Henchy

J. with concurring judgment of

Griffin J. and with Kenny J.) — 21

November 1980 — unreported.

Summaries of judgments prepared by

Robert Pierse, Barry O'Reilly, Joan

O'Mahony, Joseph Mannix and

edited by Michael V. O'Mahony.