The High Court has temporarily restrained the Coroner for Dublin County from arranging a post-mortem examination of Maurice Callanan, pending the trial of an action brought by his widow, Moirín Callanan. The court did not make a final ruling on whether the coroner’s decision was lawful or whether a post-mortem should ultimately be prohibited.
In a judgment delivered on 5 December 2007, Miss Justice Laffoy found that the widow had established a fair issue to be tried as to whether the coroner’s decision should be quashed under ordinary judicial review principles. She also found that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the injunction were refused and the widow later succeeded at trial.
Mr Callanan died on 27 November 2007, aged 87. His widow’s affidavit described his rheumatoid arthritis, reported heart problems and hospital treatment during 2007. She said she had been told that pneumonia, anaemia, old age and an underlying heart condition contributed to his death. Those details were her account; the judgment records that the coroner did not dispute the medical history she gave.
The widow argued that the death was neither sudden nor from unknown causes and that a post-mortem was unnecessary. She initially understood that the examination had been ordered because she complained about treatment in the hospital’s Accident and Emergency Department. The coroner said the complaint was not the reason: the consultant who treated Mr Callanan during his final illness could not sign a death certificate because the cause of death had not been identified. The coroner said the treating consultant and a registrar considered that the cause could not be stated with certainty.
The court considered the coroner’s discretionary powers under sections 18(1) and 33(1) of the Coroners Act 1962. It noted that the coroner was not obliged to hold an inquest on the facts as presented, but understood that he had decided to proceed using his discretionary power to inquire into the death, together with the power to direct a post-mortem.
In weighing the application, the judge recognised that refusing an injunction would make it impossible for the widow to obtain her proposed permanent restraint if she later won at trial. Granting one could, however, compromise the effectiveness of a later examination. The court also said that, without medical evidence that could have been produced but was not, it could not assess the strength of the widow’s case. It described the circumstances as exceptional.
The order restrains the coroner from causing a post-mortem to be carried out only until the action is tried. The judgment does not determine the final challenge or grant a permanent injunction.