Hildegarde Naughton (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for her ongoing interest in and advocacy on this matter. I wish to express my personal sympathies to those who have been impacted by the Stardust tragedy – the families, the victims and the wider community. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, is keen for this legislation to be enacted in order for the Stardust inquest to progress.

Regarding the amendments, Part 8 of the Bill responds to concerns that the selection of the Stardust inquest jury should be as representative as possible. Thus, the provisions at Part 8 displace, for the Stardust inquest, the current provision whereby, at the coroner's request, the Garda assembles an inquest jury. In providing for this selection process, careful regard was had to certain relevant provisions of the Juries Act 1976 and, in particular, for the county registrar to assist the Dublin coroner to assemble the inquest jury. The jury will be selected in public before the coroner prior to jurors being sworn in for the inquest. The coroner is empowered to discharge a juror if she considers such action necessary.

However, it must be borne in mind that the coroner's inquest is an inquisitorial process and must be conducted according to the provisions of the Coroners Act 1962. There are no "parties" at an inquest. It is not an adversarial process. There are no defendants or plaintiffs, appellants or respondents. The inquest is a fact-finding process. It may not, by law, seek to blame or exonerate any person or assign liability.

I understand the genuine concerns of the Senators in tabling these amendments about seeking to ensure that a jury is appropriately selected and no persons who are ineligible to serve or who have a conflict of interest would serve. These amendments seek to replicate sections 20 and 21 of the Juries Act 1976 regarding parties challenging potential jurors. However, those provisions deal with jury selection in criminal and civil proceedings, at which liability is to be determined between opposing parties. Such provisions are not appropriate to an inquest situation. Indeed, to seek to replicate them could give rise to uncertainty and legal complications. Section 59(2) of the Bill provides for the coroner to direct at any stage that a person shall not serve as a juror for any stated reason if the coroner considers it desirable in the interests of justice that she should give that direction.

Regarding judicial reviews, no one can rule out the inquest being challenged, so I cannot give the Senator that guarantee, but I hope she appreciates that, for the reasons outlined, I cannot accept these amendments.