Judgment: 2001-11-27 · Court archive

Supreme Court limits Dublin coroner’s power to call further medical evidence in vaccine inquest

Supreme Court · [2001] IESC 96

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Eastern Health Board
  • Brian Farrell
  • Vera Duffy
  • Kevin Duffy
  • Mr Justice Hardiman
What

Supreme Court limits Dublin coroner’s power to call further medical evidence in vaccine inquest

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court first considered the scope of an inquest. It rejected an earlier, very narrow interpretation under which determining “how” a person died would amount merely to identifying the immediate medical cause of death. Mr Justice Hardiman said an inquest could properly examine a medical factor which may have played a causal role in the process leading to death.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Dublin City Coroner Brian Farrell could not call further medical evidence in an inquest examining whether a three-in-one pertussis vaccination caused or contributed to a child’s death.

Mr Justice Hardiman, concurring with the order proposed by the Chief Justice, dismissed the coroner’s appeal on the narrow ground that section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962 restricted his power to receive evidence from additional medical practitioners.

The proceedings were brought by the Eastern Health Board. Vera Duffy and Kevin Duffy, the deceased child’s parents, were joined as notice parties.

The court first considered the scope of an inquest. It rejected an earlier, very narrow interpretation under which determining “how” a person died would amount merely to identifying the immediate medical cause of death. Mr Justice Hardiman said an inquest could properly examine a medical factor which may have played a causal role in the process leading to death.

Accordingly, the question of whether the three-in-one vaccination caused or contributed to the child’s death was capable, in principle, of falling within the coroner’s remit. The passage of time between vaccination and death did not itself exclude that inquiry.

The difficulty was procedural. Several medical practitioners had already given evidence and the coroner proposed obtaining further evidence from Dr Karina Butler because he considered the existing expert evidence conflicting.

The Supreme Court held that section 26 significantly restricted the coroner’s power to call medical practitioners. On its interpretation, the provision did not permit the coroner to continue adding medical witnesses beyond the statutory limit.

The ruling therefore settles the coroner’s power to call further medical evidence in this inquest. It does not decide whether the vaccine caused or contributed to the death. Mr Justice Hardiman described the statutory restriction as a serious obstacle in complex modern inquests, but said the court was bound by the legislation as enacted.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review