The Court of Appeal has dismissed Natasha Cummins and Aiden Spencer’s appeal against the High Court decision refusing to quash the inquest verdict on the death of their baby, Tommy Spencer. It found evidence before the inquest jury on which it could lawfully return a verdict of death by natural causes.
Tommy was born alive at University Hospital Waterford on 13 July 2018 after his mother suffered a uterine rupture during labour. He was transferred to Cork University Hospital for life support and died there on 18 July 2018 after brain injuries sustained during delivery. The couple maintain that Oxytocin caused or contributed to the rupture and that the pregnancy was high risk because of a previous caesarean birth.
A jury at the inquest returned a verdict of “natural causes” and recommended that the hospital review its policies on Oxytocin. The couple sought judicial review, asking the court to quash the verdict and order another inquest. The High Court dismissed that application in 2022, and the couple appealed.
The appeal was a judicial review challenge, not an appeal on the merits of the inquest verdict. The Court of Appeal said the test for quashing the decision was whether it was irrational in the demanding sense set out in earlier case law. The court noted that medical witnesses disputed the couple’s claims of inappropriate Oxytocin use and hyperstimulation. The couple’s lawyers put those propositions to witnesses, but the couple called no medical or midwifery evidence to support them. The court agreed that the jury had evidence on which it could reject the couple’s account and return a natural-causes verdict.
The court also rejected the challenge to the inquest’s pre-printed verdict form. It said the recorded causes included acute hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, intra-uterine hypoxia and placental malperfusion, and were not limited to the proximate cause of death. The court observed that determining the cause of those events might involve civil liability, which is outside an inquest’s jurisdiction.
The judges further noted that the couple’s counsel had not objected to the coroner’s directions at the inquest. The court said the specific findings the couple sought about consultation, consent, monitoring and Oxytocin use would have questioned the care provided, which the Coroners Acts do not permit an inquest verdict to do. It also rejected the claim that the jury had been pressured by the courthouse’s 5pm closing time, noting the lack of supporting evidence and that no objection was made when the closing time was raised.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that the couple should pay the respondent’s costs, but it directed written submissions from the couple within 14 days and a response from the respondent within a further 14 days. The judgment did not make a final costs order.