This is not the first time this afternoon that Deputy Higgins has asked me to pass judgment on events that occurred outside this Chamber – it is not my function to do so. It is clear that my function in respect of this matter relates to section 15 of the Coroners Act, 1962, which only empowers me to remove a coroner from office when it can be clearly established that the coroner concerned is guilty of misconduct or neglect of duty, or is unfit for office or incapable of his or her duties by reason of physical or mental infirmity.
This matter has been going on for a considerable period and has been dealt with by the High Court, which referred to the merits of the case. Mr. Justice Smyth, in his judgment of 30 January 1997 referred to the allegation that the jury did not hear the full evidence the coroner had in his possession. All I can say is that Mr. Justice Smyth said the allegation is not only "not sustained" but, on the evidence, is not sustainable. Of course I understand and empathise with the widow of the deceased, who is not happy with the inquest proceedings according to Deputy Higgins, but the Deputy will appreciate that the allegations have not been proven and that the good name and reputation of the coroner concerned must also be considered. In those circumstances it would clearly be improper for me to go further than I have done. I have outlined my powers in relation to this matter, and they are quite clear and explicit. If I were Deputy Higgins, I would desist from making allegations across the floor in a manner which indicate that he is disposed towards believing the same allegations.