The High Court has refused an application by Natasha Cummins and Aiden Spencer to quash a coroner’s inquest verdict concerning the death of their son, Tommy Spencer, in July 2018.
The jury inquest, held at Cork Courthouse on 10 September 2020, returned a verdict of death by natural causes and recommended that University Hospital Waterford “take a look at their current policy”. The applicants sought judicial review of that verdict. Their challenge was confined to the request to quash it; other reliefs, including claims concerning Ms Cummins’ consent to oxytocin, were not pursued at the hearing.
The applicants argued that the evidence could not support the verdict, that the jury had been under pressure to decide quickly, and that the coroner had not properly directed it. They said the labour monitoring and use of oxytocin should have led to earlier intervention. Medical witnesses disputed the claims of inappropriate oxytocin use and hyperstimulation. The judge said the applicants had not called a medical witness at the inquest to support those propositions, and that submissions made by counsel were not themselves evidence.
Justice Bolger found there was relevant medical evidence before the jury on which it could reach its verdict. She said the jury was entitled to reject the applicants’ propositions and that the challenge did not meet the high legal threshold for quashing a verdict on grounds of irrationality.
On the time allowed, the applicants’ solicitor recalled pressure to finish by 5pm, while the coroner said arrangements were available to continue the next day if needed. The judge preferred the coroner’s account and found the applicants’ evidence too vague to support the serious allegation that the jury had been told it could not continue the following day.
The judge also found the coroner’s directions on the available verdicts adequate. The coroner’s account was that he told the jury it could return an open, narrative, medical misadventure or natural-causes verdict. The judge noted the applicants had not challenged the direction at the inquest.
The coroner had not produced his hearing notes. The court drew no conclusion against him, noting that the applicants had not asked for the notes or sought discovery before the matter was set down. The application was refused. The judge gave an indicative view that costs should follow the cause and listed the matter for 14 December to allow the applicants to address whether there were reasons for a different costs order.