Seanad debates

Thursday, 15 December 2005

Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005: Second Stage.

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I would also like to welcome the Coroners (Amendment) Bill 2005. The Minister has reminded the House that the coroners review group has produced 110 recommendations, which are being examined by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This legislation has been produced with haste to meet the needs of the Nowlan family and other families which have found themselves in similarly unfortunate circumstances. I welcome the form of the Bill, on which I will comment shortly. I do not doubt that the more comprehensive Bill that will be produced in the future, like the legislation before the House today, will empower coroners to fulfil properly and adequately their roles and responsibilities. They deserve to be given powers to administer their jurisdictions and meet their responsibilities which are in parallel with the powers of those who administer courts.

This technical Bill amends the Coroners Act 1962 in three significant ways. First, it removes the limit on the number of medical witnesses who can be called before a coroner's inquest. There will not be any such limit under this legislation. I understand the logic of the restriction in the 1962 Act of the number of medical witnesses who can be called to two. In fact, just one such witness was allowed to be called in most cases, unless there was a need for a further witness. What will happen if a coroner is faced with conflicting medical evidence at an inquest? It is always important for families to ascertain precisely what happened to their loved ones. Is there any scope for some difficulties in that regard? If I try to rationalise it, I presume that a coroner will call a third or fourth medical witness to get some clarification. This aspect of the matter needs to be monitored although it is clear that I subscribe to this provision. The existing restrictions under the 1962 Act mean that if a medical witness does not give adequate evidence to a coroner, for whatever reason, the conclusions reached at that inquest are insufficient.

The second way in which the Coroners Act 1962 is amended involves the repeal of the outdated fine of just £5, which is imposed on a person who fails to attend an inquest. When we are providing for monetary penalties in legislation, I often wonder whether we should link them to inflation so they increase automatically and the legislation does not have to be amended in the future. Similar provisions are in place in many other areas of activity. It strikes me that we should include a measure of that nature in the Bill before the House.

The third significant amendment of the 1962 Act will empower coroners when they are issuing summonses to witnesses. The amendment to which the Minister alluded, which provides that a person can be summonsed by means of registered post, is eminently sensible. Our postal service is reasonably reliable——

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.