I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time." It will be within the recollection of a number of Senators that Senator de Loughry obtained leave to introduce a Coroners Bill on the 6th May last year. The object of that Bill was to more clearly define the circumstances under which it is the duty of a coroner to hold an inquest. The Bill was read a second time, I think, on 20th May, and it contained only two sections, in addition to the section giving the Title to the Bill. It was purely declaratory. It merely declared what the duty of the coroner was in the matter of holding inquests. It was felt at the time that a Bill that was purely declaratory could have no real good effect, and, accordingly, it was referred to a Special Committee for the purpose of having it so amended as to have some useful and practical changes made. The Committee met, and they discovered that there was practically no amendment of the law regarding coroners in this country since the Act was passed in 1846. There were one or two statutory amendments since, one of which made an inquest necessary where a person died in prison, and another where a person died in a lunatic asylum.
The Local Government Act passed in 1898 alters the mode of election of coroners, but as to the general law regarding coroners and the holding of inquests there have been no amendments since 1846. In these circumstances a number of amendments and additions have to be made in this Bill. It so happened, and perhaps rather fortunately, that just about the same time the necessity for amending the law with respect to coroners had occurred to the English Parliament and a Bill was introduced in the House of Commons some time, I think, about the time Senator de Loughry's Bill was introduced in this House. It was abandoned, and subsequently introduced in an amended form in the House of Lords, and I think it is still on its way towards completion. In framing amendments to Senator de Loughry's Bill we had the advantage of having the English Bill before us, and we adopted, so far as we thought it desirable to do so, a number of the provisions of this English Bill. In addition, we inserted a number of amendments applying particularly to this country.
The Committee reported and the members of the House have had that report before them. It was evident from the report that the Bill was so metamorphosed, so completely changed that it would not have been right to bring it before this House for the first time on the Committee Stage. It was, therefore, agreed that Senator de Loughry's Bill should be allowed to remain for the present, and to ask that leave be given to introduce the present Bill, which for all practical purposes is identical with Senator de Loughry's Bill as amended by this Special Committee. Although the present Bill is somewhat different from the Bill introduced by Senator de Loughry, I would like to say that the credit of having a Bill of this kind introduced into this House was due to Senator de Loughry. He had the idea that the coroners' law in this country required amendment, and he moved an amendment to the Local Government Bill in 1925 in which he tried to make some kind of a declaration as to the duty of a coroner in regard to the holding of an inquest. That was outside the scope of that Bill, but he persevered with his idea and introduced his declaratory Bill, and it is to him the more extensive Bill is due. What the present Bill does is by Section 1 it declares that—
"It shall be the duty of a coroner in every case in which he is informed that the dead body of a person is lying within his district, and there is reasonable cause to suspect that such person has died either a violent or unnatural death or has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown or that such person has died in prison or in such place or in such circumstances as to require an inquest under any Act other than the Coroners (Ireland) Act, 1846, to hold an inquest upon the body of such person in accordance with the provisions of the Coroners (Ireland) Act, 1846, or of this Act."
That is, it is mandatory on the coroner in cases of that kind to hold an inquest, but it was felt by the Special Committee that there are a number of cases in this country that would not come within the provisions of that section. Owing to the fact that people in country parts have often a very great objection to calling in the doctor, a very large number of deaths occur where there has been no doctor in attendance on the deceased.
Those are cases in which under Section 2 of the Bill the coroner would not be obliged to hold an inquest. The next clause of the Bill does not compel him to hold an inquest in cases of this kind, but it does this: if it is brought to his notice that there has been a death in his district of a person who was not attended in his last illness by a doctor and as to the cause of whose death there can be no certificate, he has then to inquire into the facts of the case and if it appears to him upon inquiry that it is necessary to hold an inquest, then he may do so. It is not mandatory. It is discretionary on his part, and if a case of that kind is brought to his knowledge he is bound to inquire, and then if he thinks it necessary, to hold an inquest. So much for the duties of coroner.
The next section deals with the question of a jury. There is a number of cases in which it is necessary to have an inquest, and necessary to have an inquest in a private house. In a very large number of cases of that kind a jury is wholly unnecessary. The coroner is a professional man. He is either a solicitor or a doctor, and in the ordinary case where there is anything in the nature of a crime suggested, it is often a very great inconvenience and a great hardship to people to have a jury attending in their houses for an inquest. Where there has been a sudden death and the cause is unknown the coroner is obliged to hold an inquest, and yet it is a very great hardship on the family to have a jury.
Accordingly, under Section 3 there is power given to the coroner to hold an inquest without a jury. Subject to the provisions of this section a coroner within whose district the dead body of a person is lying may, in lieu of summoning a jury, hold an inquest on the body without a jury, but that right to hold an inquest without a jury is limited. That is, if it appears to the coroner either before he proceeds to hold the inquest without a jury or while he is holding it, that the deceased came by his death by reason of some crime— murder, manslaughter, infanticide, or something of that kind—or that his death occurred in prison or in circumstances which require an inquest under any statute, or that the death was caused by accident, poison or disease, notice of which is required to be given under certain Acts, or that the death was caused by accident arising out of the use of a vehicle—such as a motor vehicle—or that the death occurred in circumstances the continuance of possible recurrence of which is prejudicial to the safety of the public—in all such cases the coroner is bound to summon a jury.
