Witness in coroners court

lighterman

My brother has been "cautioned" to attend the coroners court as a witness.He found a suicide victim.

Is this the same as a summons or can he get out of it.He gave all the details to the guard which is basically he came upon the body.The deceased was not known to him.

If he does have to go does his employer pay him or is he out of pocket?

schemingbohemia

I have no idea about the rights regarding lost pay but I would say that it would be morally reprehensible to not provide evidence in a case like this.

ScaliaJ

lighterman wrote: »

My brother has been "cautioned" to attend the coroners court as a witness.He found a suicide victim.

Is this the same as a summons or can he get out of it.He gave all the details to the guard which is basically he came upon the body.The deceased was not known to him.

If he does have to go does his employer pay him or is he out of pocket?

I'm not sure what you mean by “cautioned” but assuming a formal summons was issued by the coroner then yes your brother is obligated to attended.

Section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962 provides:

A coroner may, at any time before the conclusion of an inquest held by him, cause a summons in the prescribed form to attend and give evidence at the inquest to be served on any person (including in particular any registered medical practitioner) whose evidence would, in the opinion of the coroner, be of assistance at the inquest.

Section 1 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 2005 outlines:

A person who, having been duly served with a summons requiring him to attend an inquest as a witness, fails to attend on the date and at the time and place specified in the summons shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.

The Coroners Act 1962 (Fees and Expenses) Regulations 2009 provide that an:

… allowance for loss of time in respect of employed persons, shall be the actual loss of wages or salary, on production of a certificate from the employer as to the wages or salary of the witness and the actual sum permanently lost by reason of the attendance

lighterman

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I have no idea about the rights regarding lost pay but I would say that it would be morally reprehensible to not provide evidence in a case like this.

Sorry im not try to open a debate on this but why.

"Judge/Coroner i was walking from y to z and i found the body.I do not know the deceased and nor have i ever came across him before"

i agree if it was a person known to the deceased as they maybe able to give state of mind etc but a complete stranger.

ScaliaJ wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by “cautioned” but assuming a formal summons was issued by the coroner then yes your brother is obligated to attended.

Section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962 provides:



Section 1 of the Coroners (Amendment) Act 2005 outlines:



The Coroners Act 1962 (Fees and Expenses) Regulations 2009 provide that an:

The coroner sent the guard a letter to caution him to attend.The guard just photocopied the letter and sent it to him in the post.No mention of summons

coylemj

lighterman wrote: »

Sorry im not try to open a debate on this but why.

"Judge/Coroner i was walking from y to z and i found the body.I do not know the deceased and nor have i ever came across him before"

In the absence of someone who witnessed the actual death, the person who found the body is always called to give evidence to that effect.

Ken.

My uncle drown. The guy who found his body went into shock and was in hospital for ages. Delayed the inquest by 18 months cause he couldn't give evidence. The Garda told the coroner all the guy was going to say was, "I was out walking the dog at 6am and seen a body in the water. I went immediately to the nearest public telephone(pre mobile) and dialled 999 and asked for the Gardai. I later learned that the deceased was X." The coroner wanted to here it from his mouth and dragged it on. I thought we'd be burying my aunt as it was called and adjourned 4 times and she had herself geed up each time. In the end I think words were had cause the Garda was able to read the testimony into the record.

If your called as a witness ffs go. You can call it your good deed for the year. Would you want your family suffering if it was you dead and a witness stalling.


(I know my uncles case was different cause the guy had a nervous breakdown.)

lighterman

ken wrote: »

My uncle drown. The guy who found his body went into shock and was in hospital for ages. Delayed the inquest by 18 months cause he couldn't give evidence. The Garda told the coroner all the guy was going to say was, "I was out walking the dog at 6am and seen a body in the water. I went immediately to the nearest public telephone(pre mobile) and dialled 999 and asked for the Gardai. I later learned that the deceased was X." The coroner wanted to here it from his mouth and dragged it on. I thought we'd be burying my aunt as it was called and adjourned 4 times and she had herself geed up each time. In the end I think words were had cause the Garda was able to read the testimony into the record.

If your called as a witness ffs go. You can call it your good deed for the year. Would you want your family suffering if it was you dead and a witness stalling.


(I know my uncles case was different cause the guy had a nervous breakdown.)

It genuinely is my brother as indicated in the OP. I haven't been called so won't be going.

The problem is good deed or not, his young kids won't be proud of him for being down a days wages if he doesn't have to be paid for doing.

At the min he is just beyond the neck in money worries.

That's the only reason for asking.

slimjimmc

Not sure if this helps


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0009/sec0057.html#sec57

57.—The following fees and expenses shall be prescribed, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government, namely—

(a) the fees payable to persons performing, or assisting at, post-mortem and special examinations,

(b) the expenses payable to witnesses at inquests, and

(c) the expenses payable in connection with removal or custody, in accordance with the direction of a coroner, of a body.

Ken.

Found this on citizens info site.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/sudden_or_unexplained_death/inquests.html

Witnesses at an inquest

The Coroner decides which witnesses should give evidence at the inquest and the order in which they should give their evidence. Evidence must be presented so as to provide a logical sequence of the circumstances surrounding the death. The postmortem result establishes the medical cause of death.

Witnesses who are required to attend an inquest can claim for loss of earnings and expenses. The rates for fees and expenses are set by statutory instrument.

Peregrinus

He found the body. Assuming he was alone at the time, he is the only person who can give evidence about where and when the body was found. (The guard can say "I've been told that the body was found at X place at Y time, but that's hearsay. Generally people can only give evidence about things that they themselves have seen.) Since the question of where and when the body was found is obviously relevant to the question of how the person came to die, which is the question an inquest tries to answer, his evidence is obviously important.

If his young kids "won't be proud of him for being down a days wages if he doesn't have to be paid for doing", then he's doing something wrong as a father. There's a greiving family out there, he has a unique role to play in supporting them in their grief, getting paid to play it shouldn't be the most important factor here, and his kids should realise this.

Having said that, there are expenses payable, as others have indicated. He should talk to the guards about that.

lighterman

Peregrinus wrote: »

He found the body. Assuming he was alone at the time, he is the only person who can give evidence about where and when the body was found. (The guard can say "I've been told that the body was found at X place at Y time, but that's hearsay. Generally people can only give evidence about things that they themselves have seen.) Since the question of where and when the body was found is obviously relevant to the question of how the person came to die, which is the question an inquest tries to answer, his evidence is obviously important.

If his young kids "won't be proud of him for being down a days wages if he doesn't have to be paid for doing", then he's doing something wrong as a father. There's a greiving family out there, he has a unique role to play in supporting them in their grief, getting paid to play it shouldn't be the most important factor here, and his kids should realise this.

Having said that, there are expenses payable, as others have indicated. He should talk to the guards about that.

Thats where i will totally disagree with you.My brother is doing nothing wrong as a father.He has 2 young children aged 6 and 2.The 2 year old has a complex medical condition and although the majority of the expenses are paid for them,he does miss numerous days off work when there is a relapse which is putting him under severe financial pressure which is an important factor here as you put it.

I posted here asking a question about the obligation to attend and possible reimbursement.I did not post it to have his abililities as a father questioned.

racso1975

lighterman wrote: »

Thats where i will totally disagree with you.My brother is doing nothing wrong as a father.He has 2 young children aged 6 and 2.The 2 year old has a complex medical condition and although the majority of the expenses are paid for them,he does miss numerous days off work when there is a relapse which is putting him under severe financial pressure which is an important factor here as you put it.

I posted here asking a question about the obligation to attend and possible reimbursement.I did not post it to have his abililities as a father questioned.

You were the one who brought it down that road by saying a 2 and 6 year old would not be proud.

As others said he will get payment and the suffering family will have some closure. Win-win

lighterman

racso1975 wrote: »

You were the one who brought it down that road by saying a 2 and 6 year old would not be proud.

As others said he will get payment and the suffering family will have some closure. Win-win

Yes i did.Them being the reason why i posted the question.

Mods feel free to close.My question has been answered

Peregrinus

I'm sorry if I've offended you. I was unaware of your brother's circumstances. But the fact remains that somebody has died unexpectedly here, and in terms of how we should respond to that tragedy the idea that your brother's losing a day's earnings might be a source of shame to his children did strike me as a bit skewed.

Ken.

I apologise also. When I said you I meant the royal you as in anyone called,not you personally.

coylemj

lighterman wrote: »

He gave all the details to the guard which is basically he came upon the body.The deceased was not known to him.

If the OP's brother had phoned in anonymously to report the body then they wouldn't be able to call him to the inquest and the Garda investigation or the inquest itself wouldn't be adversely affected to any degree. It's standard procedure to call the person who discovered the body because it's part of the chain of 'evidence' but if (as appears to be the case here) that witness cannot supply any evidence which could help to determine how the person died then in reality their evidence as to simply finding the body is worthless.

You find a body, call the Gardai, a patrol car arrives in a matter of minutes, you point out the body. Most people cannot see why they need to go to an inquest.

schemingbohemia

It's sad that people need to be told what the right thing to do is. As has been pointed out, the family of the deceased may end up waiting a long time for the inquest if your brother doesn't do the right thing.

lighterman

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's sad that people need to be told what the right thing to do is. As has been pointed out, the family of the deceased may end up waiting a long time for the inquest if your brother doesn't do the right thing.

Thats your opinion.If he is obliged to do it,he'll do it.I don't recall that ever being in question.

If he is not obliged to do it he wont do it and if he isn't obliged it shouldn't hold up proceeding for his family

schemingbohemia

There's a legal obligation and a moral obligation. Your brother has been legally obliged to appear, he'll get his expenses covered, but really he should have just decided to do the decent thing anyway without being legally obliged to do so.

But anyway there's no point in continuing with this.

lighterman

schemingbohemia wrote: »

There's a legal obligation and a moral obligation. Your brother has been legally obliged to appear, he'll get his expenses covered, but really he should have just decided to do the decent thing anyway without being legally obliged to do so.

The decent thing in my opinion is work and try and keep a roof over 2 young childrens heads and be able to afford expenses that a medical condition will bring upon them.

But anyway there's no point in continuing with this.

Agreed

.