Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 174: To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children the person who directed the State Claims Agency to instigate proceedings to obstruct or delay the inquest into the death of a person (details supplied); if the State will make every effort to help the family of this person in their effort to have an open and transparent inquest into the persons death; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21796/06]

Mary Harney (Dublin Mid West, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In February 2004, Frances Sheridan died after being discharged from the Accident and Emergency Department of Cavan General Hospital. Last December an Inquest was held into her death, presided over by the acting coroner for County Cavan. Following the hearing of the Inquest, the jury returned a verdict of death by natural causes.

In January, solicitors representing the family wrote to the Attorney General requesting that he direct a fresh Inquest pursuant to his statutory power under the Coroners Act 1962. It is understood that the acting coroner also wrote to the Office of the Attorney General with comments on this request. In April, the Attorney General, directed that the acting coroner hold a new Inquest.

Under the National Treasury Management Agency (Delegation of Functions) Order 2003, the management of claims alleging clinical negligence against the Health Service Executive is a function of the State Claims Agency. Nobody directs the State Claims Agency in this respect. As part of the overall management of clinical negligence claims, the State Claims Agency also provides legal representation at Coroners' Inquests for the HSE and individual practitioners employed by the Executive.

On learning of the intention to hold a new Inquest, the solicitors appointed by the State Claims Agency wrote to the acting coroner indicating their concern as to whether it was appropriate that she should conduct the new Inquest. At no stage was it suggested that there is or might be any actual bias on the part of the acting coroner. Rather, the concern was that there would be a reasonable apprehension in the light of the acting coroner's previous involvement in the case, that she might be biased. It was suggested that, in the circumstances, the most appropriate course was for the acting coroner to allow the new Inquest to be conducted by an alternative coroner. The acting coroner declined the suggestion and confirmed her intention to open the Inquest on 31 May. Subsequently, the acting coroner informed the family that the Inquest would not go ahead on 31 May but, instead, she would hear legal submissions only. This was communicated to the HSE and the State Claims Agency on 30 May last.

I am advised that neither the State Claims Agency nor the HSE sought to obstruct the Inquest or make any attempt to prevent it. The Agency and the HSE fully accept the Attorney General's decision to direct a fresh Inquest.