Dáil debates
Thursday, 13 March 2014
Topical Issue Debate
Coroners Service
4:30 pm
Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and his office for allowing me to raise this issue. None of us can imagine the horror of losing a child or a sibling at a young age, but that happened on 16 August 2009 when Sebastian Creane was murdered in his home by Shane Clancy. One can only imagine the lengths one would go to as a parent or a sibling to get answers to try to understand what led to such an event. The Creane family have been on that journey since that horrific night and have been treated abysmally by the organs of the State.
I will be submitting separate parliamentary questions on the role of the State broadcaster. It is hard to imagine that six weeks after that incident, RTE thought it appropriate to devote a segment on "The Late Late Show" to the murder of Sebastian Creane. Less than six weeks after he died and before the inquest into his death, it thought it was worthwhile to debate the issues surrounding it. It decided to proceed without involving the family even though they would not have been able to do so at that stage. RTE's behaviour was crass and unbelievable. It was a dereliction of its duty to the people as the State broadcaster. Those involved in the decision to broadcast should hang their heads in shame and answer the questions put to them about that programme.
Sebastian Creane was murdered by Shane Clancy who took his own life on the same night, so there are two families grieving. However, the coroner's inquest into the death of Shane Clancy proceeded with very little input from the Creane family who had questions they wanted answered. They put those questions to the coroner and he agreed that their submissions would be respected at Shane Clancy's inquest. It was agreed that there would be input from a representative of the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland. Those agreements are all on record because having been so alienated by the institutions of the State, the Creane family felt the need to record the conversation. At that meeting the coroner said he knew they were there because of RTE, such was his awareness of "The Late Late Show".
However, none of the agreements the coroner entered into was fulfilled at the inquest. The inquest returned a verdict that did not answer the family's questions and they were then forced to go to the High Court at considerable distress on top of the most unimaginable distress already to try to get the answers. So far they have not been able to get those answers. This shows that at a coroner's inquest, there are very few avenues for a family to pursue their questions, an issue we need to address.
Where a coroner has let a family down and has not adhered to his commitment to them, there is no redress for that family. We are all subject to performance reviews as public servants. We go before the electorate. Every other member of the public service is subject to some sort of review. Coroners must be and there must be an avenue for families who feel alienated by an inquest process to get justice and get answers. There should be some recourse available where a coroner has not done his or her job.
This was the most horrific tragedy and unimaginable loss. That loss and sense of betrayal have been exacerbated by the response of the organs of the State, a State that seeks to cherish children and cherish its citizens, but instead forces them to go down a legal route while they grieve over the loss of a son, brother, nephew and friend. Surely we can do better.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who unfortunately cannot be here, I thank Deputy Calleary for raising these matters and I appreciate the concerns he has articulated. As the Deputy will be aware, the relevant circumstances are linked to a very tragic set of events which occurred in 2009 and resulted in the deaths of two people. The Minister is very conscious that these deaths have impacted significantly on the families concerned and this is, of course, fully understandable.
The primary legislation currently applicable to coroners, the Coroners Act 1962, specifically prohibits the consideration or investigation of any question of civil or criminal liability at an inquest. In that regard it is a requirement that the inquest must be confined to ascertaining the identity of the person on whose death the inquest is being held and how, when and where the death occurred. With regard to the holding of an inquest under the 1962 Act, a coroner is a statutory officer exercising quasi-judicial functions, in which regard he or she is independent. Accordingly, a coroner is responsible for the holding of an inquest and for conducting the inquest. In that regard it is not open to the Minister or his Department to intervene on a particular case. However, the courts have ruled that they have the capacity to determine whether a coroner may have exceeded his or her jurisdiction in respect of a specific inquest. Within that framework an application for a judicial review may be made if it is considered there has been a defect in the conduct of an inquest or in its conclusions.
The circumstances linked to the case referred to by the Deputy are undoubtedly complex and it would not be appropriate to enter into a discussion on them. That being said, I might mention that these circumstances have led to judicial review proceedings which were initiated against the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Attorney General. In the event, the proceedings were not successful and, given the background involved, the State did not seek to recoup its costs.
No doubt the Deputy will recall that the Coroners Bill 2007 was restored to the Order Paper in 2011. The Bill provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the law relating to coroners and it provides for the recognition of the views of a victim's family. In particular, section 36 provides that the coroner is required to inform the family of the deceased person, or such interested person as the coroner considers appropriate, of a range of matters relating to the investigation of the death. The coroner is required, in as far as is practicable, to keep such persons informed of the progress and conclusion of the investigation. The Coroners Bill is being reviewed within the Department of Justice and Equality. This process will be completed as quickly as possible and the Deputy can be assured the concerns he has raised will be taken into account in the course of the review. The Minister is very conscious of the hurt and trauma for family members involved in this tragic case.
Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
When will we see the Coroners Bill in the House? Does the Bill make any provision for sanction if a coroner does not perform his or her duty? Will there be a way of measuring how that duty is performed in terms of his or her interaction with the family, including taking expert evidence that may be suggested by the family in order for them to get answers?
While we disagree with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on many things, he has a consistent track record of involving victims and promoting the rights of families of victims. In that context this matter is very urgent. Families who are traumatised and suffering enormous grief should not have to go to the courts to get answers. I hope the Minister will use some of the findings from this case to enhance the Coroners Bill to give the families of victims, particularly in a murder case, a better standing and respect. The Minister should look at the issue of media treatment of cases, particularly before a formal inquest gets under way, to ensure the rights of families are respected up to and during the inquest process.
Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy for his remarks. The Bill was published in 2007 and it is unacceptable it has taken so many years to get it on the Statute Book. The Deputy asked about the timeline. I understand it is the firm intention of the Minister to review this as quickly as possible in order that we can make progress and review it in a way which involves many of the issues the Deputy has mentioned.
In regard to civil law, as he rightly points out, there has been a substantial improvement in respect of the treatment and the rights of victims in cases before the ordinary courts. Whether there would be some new provisions within the Bill to deal with coroners where some malpractice or complaint has arisen is, I believe, a separate issue on the basis that there always has to be, under our system of courts, some form of a judicial appeal. The current dilemma is basically on a point of law rather than conduct and that issue would have to be teased out.
With regard to the Deputy's concerns about the review, we need to get to the review and resolve this as soon as possible. We certainly need to enhance the standing and the information given to victims and their families as a result of cases before the Coroner's Court because, of course, the court is a fundamental part of finding the facts of a case, certainly in regard to the basic information as to how someone died and the circumstances around it. People who die have rights too. It is established under international and Irish law that there is a right to find out exactly what occurred, when it occurred and the how, if one likes. In so far as we need a piece of modern legislation in respect of the Coroner's Court, the existing legislation is certainly not adequate and the Minister accepts that. As far as he is concerned, it is a priority to fix that by way of the review, as he has outlined.