The Gazette 1981

D E CEMBER

GAZETTE

1

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

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.

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.

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

Summaries of judgments prepared by Robert Pierse, Barry O'Reilly, Joan O'Mahony, Joseph Mannix and edited by Michael V. O'Mahony.

xx