The High Court has refused a judicial review brought by Bernard and Viola Bingham seeking to quash the Dublin City Coroner’s verdict on the death of their son, Mirek, and to obtain another inquest. The court extended the time for bringing the case, which was 16 days outside the six-month limit, but rejected the challenges to the verdict and the inquest process.
Mirek died on 31 December 1999, aged 16, after spending 72 days in intensive care. The inquest concluded in November 2007 with a narrative verdict. It recorded disseminated intravascular coagulation as the proximate cause of death and linked the underlying neuronal loss to a refractory seizure disorder, alongside a progressive neurological condition described as consistent with a mitochondrial defect.
The parents argued that genetic tests used in the inquest were unlawful and unreliable, that relevant witnesses were not called, and that the coroner’s findings were factually wrong. They also alleged unfair procedures, including that the coroner failed to investigate whether delay in diagnosis and treatment contributed to the death. Those were the applicants’ claims, not findings by the High Court.
Justice Hedigan held that the Paris tests arranged by neuropathologist Professor Michael Farrell did not amount to a “special examination” requiring ministerial authorisation under the Coroners Act 1962. He accepted that the muscle sample had been taken while Mirek was alive, contrary to the parents’ understanding that it came from the post-mortem. The judgment said there was relevant evidence before the coroner to support the verdict and that judicial review was not an appeal to reconsider whether the verdict was medically correct.
The judge also rejected the challenges over witnesses and the pathologist’s appointment. He said the coroner had discretion over which witnesses to call and had considered a report submitted for the family. The statutory restriction on a doctor who had attended the deceased did not apply to Professor Farrell, the judge found, because he had not attended Mirek before his death.
On fair procedures, the judgment noted that the family had been represented by a solicitor and counsel at the inquest, and that no objection was raised there about unfairness. Having reviewed the transcript, the judge found no basis for the claim that the coroner had steered witnesses or failed to allow the family’s case to be explored.
The court refused the requested relief. The judgment records that typographical errors in the death certificate had already been corrected. It did not order a new inquest.