The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the sister of James Goonan, ruling that she should receive copies of proposed witness statements held by the Acting Coroner for County Offaly ahead of the inquest into her brother’s death.
Mr Justice Fennelly delivered the judgment on 6 December 2005. The court set aside the High Court order to the extent indicated and said counsel should be heard on the appropriate form of the order. It did not grant general access to all material held by the coroner.
Mr Goonan died on 11 March 2002. His sister, Nuala Ramseyer, was entitled as next of kin to participate in the inquest. She argued that she could not participate effectively without advance knowledge of the evidence, including whether his head injury resulted from a fall or otherwise. Her solicitors had sought witness statements and medical material. The coroner provided a State Pathologist’s report, which gave haemorrhage and shock from a head laceration as the cause of death and cited alcohol and heart disease as contributory factors. It discussed an assault or a fall as possible causes and appeared to favour a fall.
The coroner refused to release draft depositions before they were sworn at the inquest, arguing that they had no standing before then and that disclosure risked turning an inquisitorial inquiry into an adversarial proceeding. The High Court dismissed Ramseyer’s judicial review application. She appealed.
The Supreme Court said an inquest is a fact-finding process, not a trial to decide civil or criminal liability. But interested people are entitled to an appropriate level of fair procedures, and an inquest may examine the circumstances surrounding a death. Whether material must be disclosed in advance depends on the case, including whether withholding it would prejudice participation.
The court found that the unsigned statements had no evidential value before verification, but could still inform Ramseyer about the evidence likely to be given. Given her reasoned concern about how the fatal injury occurred, denying access could unduly prejudice her ability to address that issue. The court said the statements could be used only for the inquest’s fact-finding purpose, and the coroner could control their use and impose confidentiality conditions.
The ruling did not require disclosure of sensitive material such as photographs of the body; the court found no demonstrated error in the coroner’s discretion on that issue. It did not decide the appeal’s arguments under the European Convention on Human Rights.