Mr. Michael Finucane:

I wish to begin by adding my thanks and congratulations to the committee in taking the time to examine this very important but sadly neglected issue. My experience is primarily in the field of representation of bereaved families at inquests. I acknowledge that some of the people I represent are here today to observe these proceedings. If the previous speakers have given the committee what might be called the bird's eye view I will try to give a little bit of the worm's eye view and explain what it is like to be involved in an investigation with reference to the developments that have taken place in Strasbourg but also in Ireland.

It hardly needs to be said that death is something that affects everyone. At some point in our lives we all experience it, sometimes very directly and sometimes in traumatic and violent circumstances. However, in all deaths every family deserves the best possible investigation, the most thorough investigation and the most effective investigation possible. They deserve it without having to ask for it.

There are some things that in Ireland the inquest system has done well for families over the years. In a small country where communities were intimately related and co-existing, features like empathy and informality served people very well, by offering them an additional support mechanism at a time of trouble in their lives. However, the problem with this type of system is that it often depended very much on the nature of the individuals involved in the investigation. If one was dealing with sympathetic investigators who thought as if they were in the family's shoes, then often the outcome would be regarded as welcome by the bereaved people. In simple terms, when the circumstances of the death or the case at hand might be described as straightforward, then the system was good and met the needs of the bereaved. However, when it was not so straightforward, when difficult questions had to be asked of people in positions of responsibility and obligation, then the Irish system rated poorly, in my view. Questions that might be asked, for example, of An Garda Síochána, where a person died in police custody, were often met with great resistance, delay and lack of information being provided to families, forcing them into the position of seeking redress in the courts.

In that regard, one case that I would point to and which is referred to in my paper - the Ramseyer case - ended up in the Supreme Court simply as a result of that family's request for information about the investigation into the death of their relative. It is worth singling out the Ramseyer case because it was not a case involving the use of lethal force by a police officer or member of the armed forces. Thankfully, those cases are relatively rare in Ireland because we do not have a uniformly armed police force. The Ramseyer case was where someone died in a domestic incident at home but the family members were very unhappy about the nature of the police investigation. It is recorded in the judgment of the Supreme Court that the family felt that foul play might be involved. However, the Garda investigation was so deficient at the time that the family felt that perhaps vital evidence had been lost. They ended up going to court because the coroner declined to provide them with copies of statements and information that he had collected from the gardaí in the course of their investigation so that they might prepare themselves for the inquest. There is no right to information contained in the Coroners Act 1962. There are no rights to many other things and, therefore, one is left in an example case such as this case, which is not straightforward and may well be controversial, with having to seek redress in the courts because the legislative framework does not provide one with what one needs. In a nutshell, that is the problem with the Irish system as it stands.

Interestingly, the Ramseyer family also considered, although did not follow through with proceedings in respect of another aspect of the Coroners Act, a little-known provision which stipulates that where a coroner is sitting with a jury, the local gardaí shall function to assemble that jury.

A Garda sergeant is tasked with the duty. It is not difficult to understand how a difficulty might arise in a case where the investigative forces in An Garda Síochána are also responsible for assembly of the jury which will adjudicate on the facts. Whatever about the anonymous assembly of juries, that one could prove problematic and may lead to litigation into the future.

If changes are to be made, a useful and effective benchmark against which Ireland might measure its new legislation and legislative framework will need to be found. This is where Article 2 comes in. The beauty, for once, of the legal judgment from a superior court is that the criteria be not only easy to understand but can be applied mechanically. It is not difficult to determine whether a particular investigation meets the requirement of public scrutiny, is effective, prompt, independent or involves the next of kin and family to the maximum extent possible. It is not difficult to determine whether the State is being sufficiently proactive in fulfilling its obligations to provide bereaved people with an effective, prompt, independent investigation that is capable of establishing all of the facts. Given that we have clear benchmarks that are capable of being applied in order to assess whether the standard is met, we should grasp the opportunity.

The case law from Strasbourg originated, more or less, as a result of the quartet of judgments in 2001 referred to by previous speakers. The court, particularly the superior court in England and Wales, has grasped the initiative and developed the jurisprudence and concepts contained within them at breakneck speed, certainly by legal standards. We have a really useful, well developed and well researched bank of case law, practical experience and procedural diagrams upon which our own legislative framework could be based.

As stated, the Coroners Act dates back to 1962. Fifty plus years is way too long to leave legislation as important as that go unamended. It needs to be brought up to modern standard. However, given the wealth of information that is available to us at this point in time and given that much of the heavy lifting has been already done by our neighbouring jurisdictions, we are probably at a point where we could not be better equipped to embark on the reform process.