Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I join the other Deputies in congratulating Deputy Clare Daly, her team and the people who have been campaigning on the reporting of maternal deaths. I commend the Deputy on that work. I will not go into the details of it because it is not an area in which I have expertise but I hope they will not mind if I use the opportunity to raise an issue and, hopefully, raise amendments that we will present to the Minister and Department on another related area concerning the Coroner's Court in which I do have an interest and some experience that might improve the coroner's process. This concerns fatalities from cycling accidents. It could apply to other traffic accidents but I have a particular interest in that area. I know we mentioned a great academic - a giant from Trinity College mentioned by Deputy Clare Daly. My comments are very much based on the analysis of Dr. Mike McKillen from Trinity College who, on behalf of the Dublin Cycling Campaign, has been trying to attend as many coroner's hearings as possible relating to road fatalities in Dublin involving cyclists in recent years to use that avenue or mechanism to ensure that we learn the lessons of each tragedy that occurs and that we try to understand what is happening, why so many cyclist fatalities are happening and what we can do to avoid them. In talking to Dr. McKillen, the amendments we will present will come directly from that experience in the Coroner's Court. They are coming from a very positive and constructive attitude and approach. The timing of this Bill is very useful for us. I am thinking very much of Luby Maryori Ramirez. I could name a host of other people who, unfortunately, have been involved in tragic deaths on the roads but I will mention her. She died in March 2017 on the roundabout from Whitehall Road and Templeville Road. Typically, so many of these incidents and cycling deaths involve an accident where a truck turns left and the cyclist is caught under the wheels. We all know of other cases. Several friends have died in such circumstances. The inquest into Ms Ramirez's death happened two or three weeks ago. It was attended by Dr. McKillen. Arising out of that, our suggestions are very practical and specific and I hope this Bill might be a useful opportunity to provide that insight into the running of the Coroner's Court.

These suggestions are very practical but that is what we need. In many instances in such hearings, evidence is presented to the jury often in respect of the vehicles involved, the mechanical evidence around the nature of the vehicle, the technology or the state of the vehicle. Based on our experience - I am talking about Dr. McKillen - that evidence is not presented in a public way. It is not on the record and we believe it should be. We believe that sort of evidence should be presented not just as evidence for the coroner and jury to consider but be made available publicly, which is not the case in our experience, so that the knowledge is shared and the full evidence is presented in a very public way.

These suggestions are very technical and specific and I will return to them on Committee and Report Stages if they are ruled in order. In respect of the evidence that is often presented in the Coroner's Court regarding traffic accidents, young gardaí might report on the evidence but it is often uncertain as to what their real expertise and their training is regarding the understanding, reporting and analysis of road traffic accidents. There is a real science around the recording, reporting and understanding of what is happening on our roads and what happens when fatal accidents or indeed any accidents occur. Dr. McKillen's experience in attending all these hearings is that it is often very uncertain as to what experience or expertise a Garda has and a lack of understanding of the training and development of the skills of the Garda.

I am not blaming the gardaí. They are put in an unfortunate situation if they end up attending a coroners court where they do not have skills and expertise. One of the recommendations we have in that regard is that the relative experience, expertise and training of the gardaí in such circumstances should be shared and made clear to improve the quality of the forensic analysis, reporting and understanding of what is happening in such fatal cases.

I listened with interest to the Minister of State refer in her speech to section 20 and the possibility of removing juries from dealing with some traffic fatalities where it is clear what happened, for example, a single vehicle accident. I am slightly nervous about weakening the provisions of any analysis of road fatalities, although I fully accept the difficulties that may arise where a jury cannot be empanelled and there is a series of adjournments, which is the last thing we want the family to go through. I accept, therefore, the need to be flexible. We need to raise the importance and significance of, and the attention given to, the coroners court process because 160 fatalities is an intolerable number. We should use the process to bring in people with expertise to understand how we could avoid these accidents.

In addition, we believe there is a case to be made - and we will try to draft an amendment on this - that in coroners court cases involving traffic accidents, particularly cycling accidents, although every fatality is a tragedy, there should be a provision that, for example, the National Transport Authority or another suitable authority such as a local authority should have a road engineer with expertise on hand to give evidence to the coroners court regarding what might be possible. I will give an example to demonstrate why we call for that. Following a tragedy on a roundabout, one might hear it said at the coroners court, "Nothing could be done. You can't put a cycle lane through a roundabout", when the cycling fraternity campaign knows that it is possible. It requires a different design perspective in terms of how our roads are designed, and that needs to be brought into coroners' reports. In that way, the highest level expertise is available to the coroners so, if there has been an accident at a particular junction, a complete reconfiguration of the road is possible. One needs the best experts in the court to present that evidence, so the coroner's findings and direction to the local authority has real effect. In our experience, that is not happening under the current system, as noted in the report of Dr. McKillen to the cycling fraternity. We are looking for a technical provision where the highest level of advanced road design engineering capability the State has is directed in such a way as to ensure it appears in any such hearings.

These are technical but important provisions. A final point is that the scheduling and information relating to coroners' hearings are often not easily available. Dr. McKillen might only hear of a coroners court hearing if the family directly communicates to say, for example, it is coming up next week. We would like greater public notice and provision for NGO organisations such as the Dublin Cycling Campaign or others interested in road safety, including the Road Safety Authority, to attend and contribute, and to have clear notice regarding such hearings. They are of huge public importance, particularly to those who are involved in trying to reduce the level of road fatalities.

I hope that is not inappropriate. The Bill relates to the issue of technical and other important amendments to the coroners process. It is correct to add some of the experience we have on how we might reduce road fatalities and improve the process of coroners reports in that regard. I welcome the opportunity to contribute on that basis.

See this speech in context