Eastern Health Board v. Farrell

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves an application for judicial review brought by Company A in respect of an inquest held by the Coroner for The City, Judge Farrell. The inquest concerns the death of an individual on 31st December 1995 at the age of 22, who suffered from moderate mental retardation and died from aspirational pneumonia. The treating Consultant proposed a cause of death on the death certificate as "Aspiration pneumonia due to cerebral palsy." The family objected, alleging that the pneumonia was caused indirectly by the deceased's mental handicap, which they claimed was due to an encephalopathic reaction to a three-in-one vaccination administered in infancy. Due to this dispute, no death certificate was completed and the matter was referred to the Coroner, who directed an inquest.

The inquest commenced on 4th December 1997. Company A received notice of the inquest but was not informed that the investigation would include any possible link between the vaccination and the death. During the hearing, it became clear that the Coroner had assembled expert medical witnesses to consider not only the cause of death but also any connection to the vaccination. Medical evidence did not establish such a link, but the deceased’s parents gave evidence supporting their claim. Counsel for Company A protested that the Coroner was exceeding his statutory remit by investigating potential civil liability, which is prohibited under Section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962.

The Coroner commissioned an independent medical report to investigate the possible link, which delayed the inquest for over a year. The inquest was adjourned pending the judicial review application, for which leave was granted by the court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Coroner is empowered under Section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 to investigate an indirect link between the death and a vaccination administered in infancy.
2. Whether the Coroner acted ultra vires by commissioning an independent expert report under Section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962.
3. Whether the Coroner acted ultra vires by adjourning the inquest for an extended period after a part hearing before a jury.
4. Whether the Coroner’s inquiry trespassed into the domain of civil liability, contrary to statutory prohibition.
5. Whether the judicial review application was made promptly and in accordance with procedural rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Company A)

• The Coroner exceeded his statutory powers by investigating a possible indirect link between the death and the vaccination, which is outside the scope permitted by Section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962.
• The Coroner lacked statutory authority to commission an independent expert report, rendering the action ultra vires Section 26 of the Act.
• The lengthy adjournment of the inquest after a part hearing before a jury was improper and beyond the Coroner’s powers.
• The Coroner’s inquiry improperly encroached on civil liability issues, which are expressly prohibited from being investigated in an inquest under Section 30.

Respondent's Arguments (The Coroner)

• The judicial review application was not made promptly, and no justification for delay was provided, thus challenging the procedural validity of the application.
• The Coroner disputed the allegations of acting beyond statutory powers in the Statement of Opposition.
• The Coroner argued that the inquiry was a genuine investigation into possible medical links, not an inquiry into fault or civil liability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began its analysis by considering the leading Irish precedent, Green -v- MacLoughlin, where the Supreme Court held that a Coroner must confine an inquest to establishing the proximate cause of death and not investigate criminal or civil liability. The court emphasized that the phrase "how death occurred" should be understood medically, focusing on the immediate cause rather than remote or indirect causes.

The court acknowledged that while the present case involves a possible medical connection to a vaccination, this connection is too indirect and nebulous to fall within the Coroner’s statutory remit. The commissioning of an independent expert report by the Coroner was viewed with skepticism, as Section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962 does not clearly authorize such a step, especially without fulfilling the conditions precedent.

The court also found the prolonged adjournment of the inquest after a part hearing before a jury to be undesirable and potentially ultra vires. However, it accepted that the Coroner was not investigating fault or civil liability but rather the existence of a link in a genuine medical inquiry, so no breach of Section 30 was found on that ground.

Regarding the procedural objection about the delay in filing the judicial review, the court exercised discretion to hear the case on its merits given the public interest and the lengthy adjournment already taken.

Holding and Implications

The court held that it was not within the Coroner's statutory remit under Section 30 of the Coroners Act 1962 to investigate an indirect link between the death and the three-in-one vaccination administered in infancy. The court declared that the Coroner acted beyond his powers in this respect.

The court indicated that the commissioning of an independent expert report and the lengthy adjournment were also improper, though it did not make a definitive ruling on all subsidiary points. The judicial review application was permitted to proceed despite delay due to the importance of the legal issues.

The direct effect of this decision is to restrain the Coroner from continuing the inquest in its current form investigating the vaccine link. No broader precedent beyond the statutory interpretation and procedural rulings was established.