Vol. 515 No. 6
3 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will invoke the powers conferred on him by section 15 of the Coroners Act, 1962, in view of letters of 4 July 1994 and 2 December 1994 from the then Attorney General to a coroner (details supplied) alleging the withholding of vital evidence concerning the deceased person's allergy to penicillin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6737/00]
Following careful consideration, a decision on this matter under section 15 of the 1962 Coroners Act was made by me in 1998 to the effect that it would not be appropriate for me to invoke my powers under this section in this case. The Deputy may recall that following representations made to me by him in May 1999 regarding this case I informed him of the results of my decision on 18 June 1999 and provided him with a copy of my letter to the applicant involved.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware that the autopsy report which the coroner had before him at the inquest stated in black and white that the deceased had an allergy to penicillin and that this allergy had been recorded in the hospital notes? Not alone did the coroner not bring this to the attention of the jury, but he listened to witness after witness from the hospital say that there was no record of the allergy. In view of the clear evidence in the autopsy report, which I have here, that there was a record in the hospital of this man's allergy, does the Minister accept the coroner was wrong in—
The Deputy should refrain from making allegations against a person who cannot defend himself.
(Mayo): In a positive vein, does the Minister accept the coroner fulfilled his function in bringing all the evidence at his disposal before the jury to enable the jury to make a fully informed decision on the cause of death and circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased?
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.
(Mayo): Has the Minister read the autopsy report?
A supplementary question should be specifically about the Minister's powers.
(Mayo): It is. In relation to the Minister's powers to remove a coroner under section 15 of the Coroners Act, that matter can only be determined by the Minister making an objective evaluation of the evidence in front of him. He said he has seen the file. Has the Minister read the autopsy report?
The situation is quite clear. I have the power—
(Mayo): “Yes” or “no”? Did the Minister read the autopsy report?
The Minister is in possession. Please allow him to answer the question.
(Mayo): He should answer the question.
It is not the Chair's responsibility to extract an answer from any Minister.
It is also Question Time.
I wish to make one thing clear to Deputy Higgins because it is obvious he does not understand the position. Under section 15 of the Coroners Act, the power is reposed in the Minister for Justice of the day to remove a coroner from office for stated reasons. He must be guilty of misconduct, neglect of duty, be unfit for office or be incapable of the due discharge of his duties by reason of physical or mental infirmity. I may not evaluate the evidence in such a way as to come to a conclusion set out in section 15 of the legislation. That must be perfectly clear to any passing observer.
(Mayo): How can the Minister make a decision in relation to section 15, in other words, that he is not prepared to invoke section 15, if he has not read the evidence, that is, the autopsy report? Has he read the autopsy report, “yes” or “no”?
I took legal advice which made it clear that I did not have the power under section 15 to remove the coroner from office—
(Mayo): The Minister is a fraud.
—and that it would be wrong of me to do so. I ask that the Deputy withdraw that remark.
The Deputy should withdraw that remark.
Deputy Higgins does not have any knowledge of criminal law.
The Deputy should withdraw his remark.
(Mayo): Any Minister who comes in here and spoofs—
The Deputy should withdraw the remark.
(Mayo): I withdraw the remark in relation to the Minister being a fraud. However, he is not worthy to be a Minister because he does not understand his responsibilities.
We will proceed to Question No. 4.
Whatever about my being worthy of being Minister, the Deputy is not worthy of being an Opposition spokesperson on justice.
