Inquests and "sub judice".

political analyst

Does the sub judice rule apply in an inquest into a murder case in which the murderer is already dead?

If it does apply, why?

After all, an inquest is not a trial. Therefore, I don't see how commenting on such a case could be contempt of court.

Mr. Incognito

I dont understand the question.

How can you call someone a murderer if they have not been convicted?

you cannot defame the dead but its a bit of a pointless question.

political analyst

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I dont understand the question.

How can you call someone a murderer if they have not been convicted?

you cannot defame the dead but its a bit of a pointless question.

Of course, the deceased cannot be put on trial but it can still be obvious that the deceased is the perpetrator, e.g. the perpetrator commits suicide after committing the murder. An example is the type of murder that is known in the US as "family annihilation". Surely, the victims' relatives in such a case would not be held in contempt of court if they told the media what they know about the perpetrator, would they?

Victor

There could be issues where the murderer didn't act alone, whether in the act or in the planning.

GM228

Two things to note, the sub judice rule only applies when:-

(a) criminal proceedings are imminent (not just likely or under investigation), and

(b) there must be a real risk created as opposed to a merely remote possibility of prejudice.


An inquest would have to "create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question may be seriously impeded or prejudiced" before the rule would apply, an inquest simply seeks facts and establishes the cause of death, I'm not sure if one could prejudice a criminal trial, in any case an inquest will never occur where there is a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings are to be taken as a Garda Inspector will apply to the Coroner for an adjournement which is always granted and so the question should never arise.

Victor

Where there is initially no prospect of a criminal charge, post-inquest can't a coroner refer a case to the Garda for review, with the prospect of a criminal charge?

political analyst

Victor wrote: »

There could be issues where the murderer didn't act alone, whether in the act or in the planning.

In the case I'm thinking of, the murderer definitely acted alone. I'll give you a clue - the case is an example of what is known in the US as "family annihilation".

Peregrinus

political analyst wrote: »

Does the sub judice rule apply in an inquest into a murder case in which the murderer is already dead?

If it does apply, why?

After all, an inquest is not a trial. Therefore, I don't see how commenting on such a case could be contempt of court.

A coroner can adjourn an inquest, or the state can request a coroner to adjourn an inquest, if somebody is likely to be charged in relation to the death, and there's a fear that what might be said at the inquest could prejudice a subsequent criminal trial. Is that the question you're asking?

In theory, this could arise even if the person who actually did the killing is already dead. For example, the state might intend to charge someone else as an accessory in some way to the murder, or to charge them with some related offence.

political analyst

Peregrinus wrote: »

A coroner can adjourn an inquest, or the state can request a coroner to adjourn an inquest, if somebody is likely to be charged in relation to the death, and there's a fear that what might be said at the inquest could prejudice a subsequent criminal trial. Is that the question you're asking?

No. The case I'm thinking of is in this jurisdiction and relatively recent. There was only one perpetrator, who committed suicide after he committed the murders. Why would the victims' relatives be unwilling to say what they know about his motive for the crimes before the inquest takes place?

UrbanFox

political analyst wrote: »

No. The case I'm thinking of is in this jurisdiction and relatively recent. There was only one perpetrator, who committed suicide after he committed the murders. Why would the victims' relatives be unwilling to say what they know about his motive for the crimes before the inquest takes place?

Is what they know also what they can prove ? If yes, they should be tendering their evidence, as material witnesses, to the Coroner's Court as that is the authority competent to adjudicate on what is fact.

If the coroner is sitting with a jury I would not like to see half of the evidence given pre-emptively to the court of public opinion via the media. I would be more concerned to see the purity of the process complied with by any such evidence going to the jury first and preserving the dignity of the deceased by not reducing the matter to a potentially lurid story by the time certain factions of the media have finished with it :rolleyes:. That latter concern would be safely regarded as being very US too.

Remember that a Coroner's inquest is a very restricted form of legal proceeding which does not make adjudications on issues of fault or liability or criminal culpability.

Once the inquest has concluded and a verdict issued I would see no inhibition in as much public discussion as you like. However, the normal rules of defamation would still apply as far as the reputations of anyone still alive goes like family or friends of the deceased perpetrator.

Peregrinus

political analyst wrote: »

No. The case I'm thinking of is in this jurisdiction and relatively recent. There was only one perpetrator, who committed suicide after he committed the murders. Why would the victims' relatives be unwilling to say what they know about his motive for the crimes before the inquest takes place?

Have they said that there reluctance to talk is on account of the sub judice rule?

I can think of scores of reasons why they wouldn't want to talk about this in public or to the media - they are grieving; it's private and personal to them; they don't wish to engage in public controversy; they don't want to risk hurting the killer's family any more than they are already hurting; they are not comfortable being in the limelight. You can probably add to this list without difficulty yourself.