Page 128 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 8 December 2004
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(1) instruct the lawyers representing the Attorney-General and the ACT Government to discontinue the appeal against Coroner Doogan in the ACT Supreme Court; and
(2) affirm his and his Government’s confidence in the coronial process.
I did not think I would see the need for the opposition to move a motion such as this. To come to this step is a result of what appears to be an unprecedented and indeed extraordinary decision by the Attorney-General to join in an appeal against the coroner on the grounds of apprehended bias in relation to a coronial process.
I make no comment in relation to the other nine individuals, who have appealed through their legal counsel. That is entirely separate from the matter in relation to the Attorney-General. The Coroners Court in the ACT is set up by an act of parliament—the Coroners Act of 1997 as amended. The coroner is a magistrate who fundamentally has a jurisdiction relating to inquests into deaths, under section 13 of the act; into fires under section 18; and something that has no relevance here: disasters, which she or he can be requested to do by the Attorney-General. I do not think anyone has any comment in relation to the fact that there needs to be a coronial inquest into the matters pertaining to 18 January 2003.
The coroner, of course, has the power to summon witnesses, to summon evidence and to summon documents. Under section 47, the coroner is not bound to observe the rules and procedures in evidence applicable to proceedings before a court of law. The coroner can take evidence on oath or affirmation. The coroner also can require a witness to answer a question put.
Unlike other types of judicial matters, section 55 ensures that the coroner will not include in any finding or report under the act—and that includes an annual report—a comment adverse to a person identified from the finding or report unless that person has, prior to the making of the finding or report, taken all reasonable steps to give that person a copy of that comment and a written notice advising the person within a specified period that the person can make a submission in relation to the proposed comment or give the coroner a statement in relation to it. The coroner has to include those statements in the final report. That is a natural justice provision.
In relation to the coroner, Dr Freckleton, who is a learned expert in coronial inquiries and a barrister in Victoria, was recently on the ABC and expanded further on the role of the coroner and the problems facing this Attorney-General in relation to this very fundamental principle of the separation of powers and the role of the Attorney.
Dr Freckleton stated that the role of the coroner basically lies between the civil and criminal jurisdictions. The coroner’s basic role is to find out what brought about the tragedy and what can be done to fix it. The role of the coroner is an ancient lineage; and what occurred in the ACT, in terms of what the Chief Minister and attorney has done in joining the appeal to the Supreme Court is highly unusual. According to the good doctor, it is highly unusual for an action such as this to take place. He says that parties on occasions in coronial inquests have sought to have an inquest interrupted on an appeal to a superior court to get a ruling—for example, whether certain evidence should be taken. The Chief Minister and the Attorney-General has a role, and this is problematic. It has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .