Re Siberry's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 2008 |
| Date | 04 December 2008 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
Court and Reference: High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland, McCL7331
: McCloskey J
: S Green for the applicant; P McAlinden for the respondent coroner; D Scoffield for the Prisoner Ombudsman as interested party
: Whether, where medical experts relied on by an investigator with no medical expertise were to give evidence at an inquest, the investigator should also be permitted to give evidence as to the medical issues to be canvassed by the medical experts.
: The deceased died in prison: he apparently suffered an epileptic seizure. A question arose as to the impact of an alteration of his medication by the applicant, a doctor providing medical services in the prison. The Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland conducted an investigation into the death. He had no medical expertise and so obtained expert opinions from a neurologist and a general practitioner on the management of the deceased's epilepsy in custody. In his report, the Ombudsman made criticisms of the standard of care provided by the applicant to the deceased, based upon the opinions of the two medical experts. The Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland decided that he would call the two medical experts to give evidence and would also allow the Ombudsman to give evidence based on the entirety of his report, including evidence as to the medical issues. The applicant sought judicial review of this decision, contending that to allow the Ombudsman to give such evidence would beWednesbury unreasonable and unfair.
:
I. Introduction
1. By this application for judicial review, Hazel Siberry (hereinafter "the applicant"), a general medical practitioner by profession, challenges a decision of the Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland (hereinafter "the Senior Coroner") relating to the forthcoming inquest hearings concerning the death of Ronald William Davey ("the deceased") who, then aged 24 years, suffered his demise on 7 October 2005 when an inmate of HMP Magilligan. The other protagonist in this matter is the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland ("the Prisoner Ombudsman"), on whose behalf submissions were made at the initial hearing when the court granted leave to apply for judicial review. A written submission was subsequently provided and two affidavits were filed.
2. An invitation by the court to another potentially interested party, the bereaved family of the deceased, also represented at the initial hearing, to provide a written submission and such affidavit evidence as might be considered desirable was declined in the event. It is appropriate to highlight that this stance was taken on the basis that, in the circumstances, the legal representatives of the bereaved family were of the view that they had nothing to add to the written submission on behalf of the Prisoner Ombudsman. Having regard to the trenchant observation of Lord Hoffmann in In Re E (a child) [2009] 1 AC 536 that a third party intervention is "of no assistance if it merely repeats points which the Appellant or Respondent has already made" (para 3), I consider that this was a proper and responsible course to take. In the event, the arguments on behalf of the Prisoner Ombudsman, perhaps unavoidably, mirrored closely those of the Senior Coroner. I would add, however, that some additional ground was covered in the Prisoner Ombudsman's written submission and, further, the affidavit evidence emanating from this source served to ensure that the court was more fully informed about certain aspects of the factual framework.
3. In brief compass, the evidence establishes that the deceased suffered from epilepsy and was in receipt of medication accordingly. On 23 June 2005, he was transferred from HMP Maghaberry to HMP Magilligan (hereinafter "Magilligan"). It appears that his last reported epileptic seizure had occurred in July 2003. The applicant provided services in Magilligan as a locum general practitioner. In this capacity, she attended the deceased on 24 June 2005. The outcome of this consultation was a reduction in the dosage of one of the two prescribed anti-epileptic medications being taken by the deceased. Further doctor/prisoner consultations followed on 14 July, 21 July and 11 August 2005. On 17 September 2005, the deceased suffered an epileptic seizure, precipitating an examination by one Dr Thompson, another locum general practitioner, two days later. On 7 October 2005, the deceased was found dead in a bath. It would appear that he drowned after having suffered a further epileptic seizure.
II. The impugned decision
4. One of the consequences of the death was an investigation of its circumstances by the Prisoner Ombudsman and a resulting report, which I shall outline in greater detail presently. The report is dated 23 October 2007. Its contents form the background to the decision of the Senior Coroner under challenge in these proceedings. The origins of the impugned decision can be traced to a preliminary hearing conducted by the Senior Coroner on 14 May 2008. The value of such hearings is appreciated by interested parties and their legal representatives throughout this jurisdiction. In the present case, the preliminary hearing and its outworkings served to expose a contentious issue of some significance well in advance of the scheduled inquest hearings. In granting leave to apply for judicial review, I ruled that the determination of this issue in advance of the inquest hearings would be preferable to a legal challenge arising either in the course of the hearings or in their aftermath. The benefit thus secured is that, as regards the matter of controversy, the findings ultimately returned by the jury will be robust and beyond challenge. I acknowledged at the permission stage, and hereby reiterate, that intervention by the High Court in this kind of context will be the exception rather than the rule.
5. In advance of the preliminary hearing to be conducted on 14 May 2008, the applicant's legal representatives furnished a written submission to the Senior Coroner. This submission addressed the issue of the evidence to be adduced at the forthcoming inquest hearings and, specifically, the prospect of the Prisoner Ombudsman attesting to the contents of his investigation report. The concluding paragraph of this submission advocated as follows:
"Therefore the coroner is respectfully invited to consider carefully the extent, if any, to which the Ombudsman can give legitimate evidence of facts (as opposed to opinions, conclusions and inferences drawn from the facts as he viewed then). It is submitted that all the relevant facts can be properly explored without excursion into the views expressed by the Ombudsman."
Simultaneously, a representation to like effect was made on behalf of the aforementioned Dr Thompson in a letter from his solicitors to the Senior Coroner. They contended that the Prisoner Ombudsman's report, in complete form, should not be placed before the inquest jury. A further representation in writing was made on behalf of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, addressing the same topic, in a letter dated 22 May 2008 from Ms McCart of the Crown Solicitor's Office, who suggested that the Prisoner Ombudsman
" should not be a witness at the inquest and in many respects his investigation and report has pre-empted the findings of the inquest jury, may have trespassed on the jurisdiction of the inquest and that no final report from the Prisoner Ombudsman should have issued until after the inquest has been completed."
Contra, on behalf of the bereaved family, it was submitted that the Prisoner Ombudsman should be permitted to attest to his investigation and its conclusions, which evidence could be questioned by all interested parties.
6. Against this background, the impugned decision materialised. It is expressed in a series of letterswritten by the Senior Coroner. Firstly, by letter dated 20 May 2008 to Dr Thompson's solicitors, he stated:
"In relation to the evidence of the Prisoner Ombudsman, my approach would be not to provide each juror with a copy of the entire report. However, the Prisoner Ombudsman would be asked to give evidence based on it."
Continuing, the Senior Coroner referred to s. 6(1) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 and its provisions relating to reasonable precautions, defects in the existing system of working and any other facts relevant to the circumstances of the death, observing:
"I would allow the Prisoner Ombudsman and other witnesses to state their views on each of these and, of course each would be liable to be examined in relation to what they say."
This letter stimulated a further written submission on behalf of the applicant. In reply, by letter dated 5 August 2008, the Senior Coroner affirmed his intention to abide by his earlier ruling.
7. Undeterred, the applicant's solicitors continued to correspond and, in particular, posed certain questions about the Senior Coroner's proposals regarding, in particular, the evidence to be adduced from the Prisoner Ombudsman at the inquest hearings. The Senior Coroner responded, by letter dated 27 August 2008. Firstly, he confirmed that the Prisoner Ombudsman would be a witness at the inquest hearings. He continued, secondly:
"The Ombudsman will be asked to give evidence based on the contents of his report."
I pause to observe that this pithy sentence encapsulates the key ruling of the Senior Coroner and has generated the controversy giving rise to these proceedings. The letter continues:
"That report does contain what may be termed 'opinion evidence' but then the report of any person or body charged with investigating a death would contain evidence that could be classified in that way. For example, I would refer you to reports prepared by the Police Ombudsman, the Health and Safety Executive, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch and the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. Also, as you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chief Constable of Police Service of Northern Ireland’s Application
...[36] In Northern Ireland the same liberal approach to the task of the coroner is discernible. McCloskey J in Re Siberry (No 2)IQLR[2009] Inquest Law Reports 1 at para 57 has said: "The route to the permissible terminus of an inquest can be wider than the terminus itself." [37] Weatherup J r......
-
Jordan's Application
...under this general head relate to the Senior Coroner's response to the judgment of McCloskey J in Re Siberrys ApplicationIQLR[2009] Inquest Law Reports 1, delivered on 4 December 2008. The applicant summarised these submissions in [29] of his written submissions in the following terms: "In ......