Inquest

Seanachai

Hi, I just have a few questions about inquests.

1) Do all inquests have to be recorded either by a stenographer or through recording equipment?.

2) If a Gardai giving testimony obscures their microphone or mumbles to the point of being inaudible can a new inquest be requested?

3) Is there an independent body in Ireland that gives advice on a suspected case of corruption in an inquest?

The_Minister

On (2), generally speaking if a witness cannot be heard the participants will ask him to speak up or repeat himself.

The fact that he cannot be understood in the actual recording wouldn't mean the inquest needed to be repeated as obviously those there were able to hear it and understand it.

Technical issues are unfortunate, but not a mere recording difficulty wouldn't be grounds for a new inquest.

Seanachai

The_Minister wrote: »

On (2), generally speaking if a witness cannot be heard the participants will ask him to speak up or repeat himself.

The fact that he cannot be understood in the actual recording wouldn't mean the inquest needed to be repeated as obviously those there were able to hear it and understand it.

Technical issues are unfortunate, but not a mere recording difficulty wouldn't be grounds for a new inquest.

He was asked to speak up as he couldn't be heard, one witness also said that his statement was changed and the Garda claimed that he had to skip an important paragraph because he 'couldn't read the writing'. The forensics evidence also contradicted the judges verdict. I don't know if it's relevant but the jury was supposed to be twelve people but only five were present, they tried to bring in a guy off the street but he knew the people involved so they couldn't sit in.

If it sounds farcical it's because it was and the family of the deceased want a to launch an appeal.

The_Minister

Seanachai wrote: »

He was asked to speak up as he couldn't be heard, one witness also said that his statement was changed and the Garda claimed that he had to skip an important paragraph because he 'couldn't read the writing'. The forensics evidence also contradicted the judges verdict. I don't know if it's relevant but the jury was supposed to be twelve people but only five were present, they tried to bring in a guy off the street but he knew the people involved so they couldn't sit in.

If it sounds farcical it's because it was and the family of the deceased want a to launch an appeal.

That doesn't sound right at all.
However, I've generally found that these things are not the result of a heinous conspiracy, but rather the lay person getting the wrong end of the stick.

If they want an appeal, then they should get legal advice - if it was really as bad as you seem to believe, then a judicial review may be in order.
If legal advice seems expensive, think of it like this - if it's going to bother them for the rest of their lives, then a few hundred euro on a consultation may be worth it.

Zambia

What so of inquest are you talking about?

I assume an inquest into a death. If so just be sure the effort is worth the result.

I don't see what the Garda and the Judge would gain in trying to fabricate such a finding.

Seanachai

Zambia wrote: »

What so of inquest are you talking about?

I assume an inquest into a death. If so just be sure the effort is worth the result.

I don't see what the Garda and the Judge would gain in trying to fabricate such a finding.

It's an inquest into an accidental death, I can't give too much details as it would be easy enough to identify the case. I can't say much but lets just say that one of the participants who's equipment may have been the cause of death is cosy with the Gardai and was patting them on the back and laughing before the hearing. The laughing and joking continued inside the court also, the family were shocked by this especially as he didn't even acknowledge them or go to the wake\funeral.

If hard forensic evidence vindicates the deceased and raises serious questions about the accident why was there no case to pursue?. I don't know what the judge and Gardai would gain but they seemed to be very friendly and tolerant to the equipment owner, he's also a very wealthy man with a lot of influence on the local county council. My brother was a witness and he was pulled aside by a Garda and told in a very intimidating fashion to not 'get emotional' in the court, his nerves were already racked on account of his friend dying and he said he was shaking in the courtroom after this encounter. People have really had their eyes opened by this whole affair.

The main garda in the case continued to laugh and joke with the man mentioned above and when the father of the deceased approached him afterwards his face dropped when he said they were appealing.

The_Minister

Or are the family suing for fatal injuries?


Tbh, this is getting very close to legal advice territory.

As said, go see a solicitor.

Zambia

The_Minister wrote: »

Or are the family suing for fatal injuries?


Tbh, this is getting very close to legal advice territory.

As said, go see a solicitor.

I agree
I'm out you need to speak to a solicitor.

Uno my Uno.

It sounds like this was an inquest at the coroners court, is that correct? If so it is not a criminal or civil court and only makes finding about whether a death was accidental, suicide etc. The Coroners Court does not find people guilty, liable or responsible for someones death, families are often confused by this.

Regardless of what happens or what is said at the inquest the family can still bring a civil case if they wish. The family should see a consult a solicitor.

Seanachai

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

It sounds like this was an inquest at the coroners court, is that correct? If so it is not a criminal or civil court and only makes finding about whether a death was accidental, suicide etc. The Coroners Court does not find people guilty, liable or responsible for someones death, families are often confused by this.

Regardless of what happens or what is said at the inquest the family can still bring a civil case if they wish. The family should see a consult a solicitor.

I don't think they were confused about the nature of the court, they were stunned that given the evidence that the judge said there was no case to answer. The behaviour I described above seemed to suggest an element of corruption and collusion also. In any case you are right it is up to the family to decide what action to take.

Pat Mustard

Seanachai wrote: »

I don't think they were confused about the nature of the court, they were stunned that given the evidence that the judge said there was no case to answer. The behaviour I described above seemed to suggest an element of corruption and collusion also. In any case you are right it is up to the family to decide what action to take.

Most coroners tend to be GPs or solicitors but not judges.

The inquest only decides the cause of death, such as misadventure, suicide, natural causes. The inquest cannot decide criminal or civil liability. The coroner cannot decide whether there was a case to answer or not.

The behaviour you described, whilst upsetting to those who witnessed it, does not clearly show corruption or collusion.

I think that many of your concerns here are borne out a lack of understanding of what happened. I would just suggest that if the family of the deceased feel the same way, they should take legal advice.

Pat Mustard

Seanachai wrote: »

It's an inquest into an accidental death, I can't give too much details as it would be easy enough to identify the case. I can't say much but lets just say that one of the participants who's equipment may have been the cause of death is cosy with the Gardai and was patting them on the back and laughing before the hearing.

If this related to a workplace accident, it could be reported to the Health & Safety Authority, who would investigate the matter and prosecute if it fell within its remit.
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Managing_Health_and_Safety/General_Application_Regulations_2007/Accident_Reporting/

Uno my Uno.

Seanachai wrote: »

I don't think they were confused about the nature of the court, they were stunned that given the evidence that the judge said there was no case to answer. The behaviour I described above seemed to suggest an element of corruption and collusion also. In any case you are right it is up to the family to decide what action to take.

Well I think there may indeed have been some confusion, no case would be answered at the coroners court and there was no judge, only the coroner. If it is clear that the death was accidental and that much was undisputed then the coroner may have felt there was little for him to examine.

There is so little that is clear from what you have told us that it isn't really possible for anyone to answer your questions. What you describe as having taken place in the court room certainly sounds upsetting but I don't know that it necessarily is corruption.

Seanachai

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Well I think there may indeed have been some confusion, no case would be answered at the coroners court and there was no judge, only the coroner. If it is clear that the death was accidental and that much was undisputed then the coroner may have felt there was little for him to examine.

There is so little that is clear from what you have told us that it isn't really possible for anyone to answer your questions. What you describe as having taken place in the court room certainly sounds upsetting but I don't know that it necessarily is corruption.

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Well I think there may indeed have been some confusion, no case would be answered at the coroners court and there was no judge, only the coroner. If it is clear that the death was accidental and that much was undisputed then the coroner may have felt there was little for him to examine.

There is so little that is clear from what you have told us that it isn't really possible for anyone to answer your questions. What you describe as having taken place in the court room certainly sounds upsetting but I don't know that it necessarily is corruption.

I'll leave it at that then, there's previous form in relation to the corruption with this guy. You'd have to be in the community to appreciate it really. Thanks for the insight anyway.