Professor Denis Cusack:

It would be with regard to the structures.

It is not a panacea. I met with the chief coroners of Singapore, Canada and England and Wales. This approach enhances procedures and consistency, but it must be undertaken within a structure. It is like everything else. One does not abolish something, as we often do, without putting something else in its place. We are all terribly aware of this point from our health service. Therefore, regarding the recommendations, I refer to the establishment of an office of the chief coroner and deputy coroner. Additionally, though, some areas of the country are struggling to get pathologists. Some of my colleagues cannot get pathologists and bodies are being moved. It is terrible for a family to find a loved one's body being moved 100 km because there is no pathologist. I stress all these aspects.

I am not sure we need to have mandatory juries in any cases. Regarding discretion, this is an inquisitorial system and there must be wide discretion. I believe lawyers and others misunderstand an inquisitorial system because we live in a common law, adversarial system in the main. When we have an inquisitorial system, however, we should be able to work together based on information. On whether we need juries, we have abolished them for almost everything. I understand, indeed, that the abolition of juries in defamation cases is being considered. The last case of this type was the Dunne case in 1988 for personal injuries. It was a medical case. Therefore, I wonder whether we need to have mandatory juries. Why could we not have good and qualified coroners? We can talk about the qualifications. I believe we have the right mixture. In the early stages, more medical knowledge is needed to sort out how to proceed with the investigation. Later, there is a need for legal qualifications. What is the best qualification for a coroner? It is to be medically and legally qualified and to have a lot of common sense and humanity. I do not think that can be put into statutes.