asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that a coroner's jury found that Reservist Thomas O'Grady (No. 38338) died from cardiac syncope due to haemorrhage from a rupture of the heart which occurred in the course of his duty; that the duty mentioned was pushing a heavily laden handcart which overturned, striking O'Grady and causing the rupture; that O'Grady leaves a widow and eight children, and, if so, if the Minister will say what amount of compensation or pension for his widow and orphans he proposes to pay.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Compensation for Reservist's Dependents.
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative.
I am not aware that the overturning of the handcart mentioned in the Deputy's question caused the injury stated. A court of inquiry which investigated the circumstances surrounding the occurrence found that death followed over-exertion in the course of duty and did not result from an injury. The medical evidence adduced at the inquiry showed that the late Reservist O'Grady's heart muscle was diseased, apparently from a previous serious illness.
No provision exists in either the Army Pensions Acts or the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme for the payment of a pension or compensation in such circumstances.
Is the Minister aware that, following the medical testimony at the coroner's inquest, the verdict found by the jury was that the deceased died from cardiac syncope due to hæmorrhage from a rupture of the heart which occurred in the course of his duty? Is he aware that a Volunteer of the Defence Forces swore that they were moving quickly at the time and the cart overturned? It struck a lump in the ground, swerved and then turned over and the handle struck the deceased, knocking him down. Is the Minister aware of these facts? Under what circumstances can a court of inquiry decide that the coroner's inquest verdict is wrong—that the decision given there is wrong?
According to the evidence at the court of inquiry, the handle of the cart did not strike the deceased. I have no means at my disposal whereby I can provide a gratuity or pension.
A commandant of the Army Medical Service gave evidence before the coroner's court. He said there were extensive injuries.
That is not the evidence that was given before the court of inquiry; it is not a correct statement at all.
Is the Minister aware that if this man was employed by an ordinary employer and this injury occurred, the Workmen's Compensation Act would apply? In what way does the State escape its liabilities in that respect?
That may be, but I have to deal with the regulations as I find them.
This man leaves a widow and eight children and they have to be maintained at the public expense. He was a barber before he went into the Army. His widow and eight children have no means of support. It is the talk of the whole County of Westmeath. There should be something done by the Army authorities. The injuries he received were the cause of his death.
I should like to know from the Minister under what legislation can a court of inquiry override a court established by the laws of this country?
That is a separate question.
The Minister says that the finding of the coroner's court is incorrect because the court of inquiry has found otherwise.
I did not say that at all; I said that the facts elicited at the court of inquiry were not in accordance with the Deputy's statement.
With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise the subject matter of question 13 on the Adjournment this evening. I have here a report of the coroner's inquest and I feel that the Minister has not the information that I am in a position to give him. I think the only satisfactory method is to raise the matter on the Adjourment.
I shall consider that. Without entering into the merits of the case, I might point out that the Minister has indicated he has no responsibility outside the legislation which prescribes when and in what circumstances gratuities or pensions shall be given.
I submit that this raises a highly important national question, as to whether a court of inquiry set up by a Department can override the ordinary law of the country.
That introduces a very wide question, which could certainly not be raised on the Adjournment.
I doubt if the finding of the coroner's court has any binding effect in this case.
A very important principle is involved as to whether a court of inquiry can override the finding of the coroner's court.
That again is too wide a question for debate on the Adjournment.
I desire to give notice that, with the permission of the Chair, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.