Why is an inquest being held now?

Snickers Man

Simple question but it has me befuddled.

An inquest into the Great Inishowen Car Crash, which occurred nearly six years ago, is only now being held and has indeed been suspended today after legal argument.

I thought that inquests were supposed to determine the cause of death. Er, we know that don't we? A high speed crash on a country road involving two cars and nine passengers, eight of whom were killed.

We know who was at fault because the only survivor, the driver of one of the cars, is currently in jail for causing death by dangerous driving.

So why now, is an inquest necessary? What remains to be determined?

coylemj

An inquest and/or civil cases can not proceed until the criminal end of the business is concluded. The driver was convicted and sentenced but the DPP appealed on the basis that the sentence was too lenient. That appeal happened in December thereby clearing the way for the inquest.

The rules governing the admissibility of evidence are much more restrictive in a criminal trial than they are in an inquest or a civil case so typically families of the deceased expect to get more questions answered at the inquest than they did at the trial though in a lot of cases they are left no better informed about what happened even if 101 witnesses give evidence at the inquest.

Lmklad

An inquest is a formal setting initiated when there is a sudden death to discover, who died, what the cause of death was and why it happened. The coroner, through the jury, can make recommendations to help prevent a reoccurrence. The coroner also decides, through the jury, the cause of death for the Death Certificate which can have implications for any insurance claims.

The inquest would have been opened after the crash and suspended until the criminal case is finished.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Lmklad

You sure? Never heard that before

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Lmklad

Ah ok and would the Crown Prosecution Service then charge or who does? As in can the Coroner direct the CPS to initiate a criminal case or just recommend that they do so?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

The rules governing the admissibility of evidence are much more restrictive in a criminal trial than they are in an inquest or a civil case so typically families of the deceased expect to get more questions answered at the inquest than they did at the trial though in a lot of cases they are left no better informed about what happened even if 101 witnesses give evidence at the inquest.

The inquest seems to be panning out as I predicted. Relatives of the deceased who are at the inquest with no legal representation are being allowed to ask questions of witnesses so pretty much a free for all.

Today a woman called Mrs. Gilloway who's car clipped the one that crashed was being asked questions ......

Under questioning from the families, Mrs McGilloway said: “I was not on the wrong side of the road, I was on the right side of the road.”

Coroner Dr John Madden reminded Ms McGilloway she did not have to answer any questions that will incriminate her in any way.

However, Anthony Friel, brother of the late Hugh Friel said: “I want answers and I will get them here today.

“I lost my brother. Before I leave I will get answers or I will stop the whole lot.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/donegal-inquest-driver-insists-she-was-on-right-side-of-road-1.2548546

This sort of carry-on would never be allowed at a criminal trial, hence my point that relatives often pin their hopes on the inquest providing answers, they are usually disappointed.

And to add to the circus, the guy who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the deaths and who is serving a sentence has sent his solicitor to the inquest and on his behalf the solicitor is claiming that the accident was caused by Mrs. Gilloway.

A MAN who killed seven friends and a pensioner in Ireland’s worst car crash denies causing the accident, an inquest into their deaths heard.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-denies-causing-irelands-worst-ever-road-tragedy-in-which-eight-men-died-34485668.html

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Going Forward

coylemj wrote: »

The inquest seems to be panning out as I predicted. Relatives of the deceased who are at the inquest with no legal representation are being allowed to ask questions of witnesses so pretty much a free for all.

Today a woman called Mrs. Gilloway who's car clipped the one that crashed was being asked questions ......



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/donegal-inquest-driver-insists-she-was-on-right-side-of-road-1.2548546

This sort of carry-on would never be allowed at a criminal trial, hence my point that relatives often pin their hopes on the inquest providing answers, they are usually disappointed.

And to add to the circus, the guy who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the deaths and who is serving a sentence has sent his solicitor to the inquest and on his behalf the solicitor is claiming that the accident was caused by Mrs. Gilloway.


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-denies-causing-irelands-worst-ever-road-tragedy-in-which-eight-men-died-34485668.html

What would Kelly's solicitor be seeking to achieve in a professional capacity at this stage?

Notwithstanding the other point already made, there's also this, so early in the inquest:

"It was suggested by Mr MacLochlainn and some relatives that she could not have seen Kelly attempting to steer his car back over to his side of the road because it was dark and one of her car lights wasn't working.

Gda Brendan Roche told the hearing that at the time of the crash it was still daylight and he was able to clearly see other vehicles when driving to the scene."

coylemj

Going Forward wrote: »

"It was suggested by Mr MacLochlainn and some relatives that she could not have seen Kelly attempting to steer his car back over to his side of the road because it was dark and one of her car lights wasn't working.

Gda Brendan Roche told the hearing that at the time of the crash it was still daylight and he was able to clearly see other vehicles when driving to the scene."

You don't need two working headlights to see what the motorist coming towards you is doing. In fact in darkness you can't see him at all apart from his headlights. And if it was daylight (as the Garda said) then the headlights issue is a compete red herring.

As I said, it's a free for all. There seems to be a fair bit of loyalty even among the bereaved families towards the guy who's in jail. He was the driver and only survivor from his car, clearly they believe his version of events and they're using the inquest in an attempt to shift the blame on to her.

Going Forward

coylemj wrote: »

You don't need two working headlights to see what the motorist coming towards you is doing. In fact in darkness you can't see him at all apart from his headlights. And if it was daylight (as the Garda said) then the headlights issue is a compete red herring.

As I said, it's a free for all. There seems to be a fair bit of loyalty even among the bereaved families towards the guy who's in jail. He was the driver and only survivor from his car, clearly they believe his version of events and they're using the inquest in an attempt to shift the blame on to her.

Completely agree, and IIRC there were calls for leniency from some or one of the bereaved families.

But this attempt at blame shifting is doing not doing anyone involved any favours credibility wise.

Presuming that the solicitor is being instructed to do it, is there anything to be gained from it from a legal perspective?

clocks

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know much about it but anyway...
A Coroner's inquest doesn't determine guilt or innocence per se, but can issue a verdict of unlawful killing which would prepicitate a criminal investigation if there had not already been one. (I have seen this happen much more in the UK so wonder if there are substantive differences between here and there.)

In this case there wasn't much doubt as to the cause of death as people have noted. I suspect that, given the ampleur of the incident, an Inquest was held to give closure to the families, to see if there were other factors responsible or reccomendations to make and to underline the tragedy of the accident. In the end the inquest was quite short

coylemj

Going Forward wrote: »

Presuming that the solicitor is being instructed to do it, is there anything to be gained from it from a legal perspective?

Nope, he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and she wasn't charged with anything so given the much higher level of proof required in criminal cases, the civil side is an open and shut case when only one of the drivers gets a conviction. The Indo said that the guy in jail had taken a case against the woman in the other car but had withdrawn it.