Judicial decisions
A non-exhaustive list of decisions relevant to the coronial jurisdiction.
Queensland decisions
Atkinson v Morrow [2005] QCA 353; [2006]1 Qd R 397 (05/4253) Brisb McPherson JA Cullinane J Jones J 23/09/2005
Magistrates - Coroners - the Coroner and the Coroner's Court - Proceedings at inquest or inquiry – inquest into the death of person who died shortly after being left by police in a remote area – whether coroner exceeded his jurisdiction – whether evidence of senior police officer should have been admitted – whether senior police officer required to give evidence at inquest.
Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Barnes & Anor [2014] QCA 152
Appeal and new trial – practice and procedure – Queensland – Time for appeal – Extension of time – General principles as to grant or refusal – where the first respondent conducted an inquest into the deaths of two women – where the second respondent was committed to stand trial on a charge of unlawful killing – where the decision to commit the second respondent to stand trial was set aside on judicial review – where the applicant/appellant intervened in the judicial review proceeding – where the applicant/appellant seeks an extension of time to appeal against the substantive decision on the ground that the trial judge erred in his analysis of the first respondent’s findings regarding the admissibility of lies – where there was some explanation for the delay – where there was no real prejudice to the respondent – where there were no real prospects of success on appeal – whether an extension of time should be granted.
Appeal and new trial – practice and procedure – Queensland – powers of the court – costs – where the applicant/appellant intervened in the judicial review proceeding overturning the first respondent’s decision to commit the second respondent to stand trial – where costs were awarded against the applicant/appellant – whether the trial judge erred in applying irrelevant criteria in exercising his discretion as to costs – whether the trial judge erred in awarding costs against the applicant/appellant rather than the State – whether the appeal against costs should be allowed.
Christensen & Anor v Deputy State Coroner [2021] QSC 38; Brisbane, Rafter AJ, 04/03/2021
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - JUDICIAL REVIEW - REVIEWABLE DECISION AND CONDUCT - REVIEW OF PARTICULAR DECISIONS - where the applicant seeks judicial review of a Coroner's directions that a witness be excused from giving oral evidence - where the witness is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and giving oral evidence would adversely impact the witness' mental state - where the witness is instead directed to provide sworn answers in writing - whether the Coroner's directions are liable to be quashed or set aside because the Coroner did not have the power to make the directions.
Davis v Ryan [2018] QDC; Townsville, Lynham DCJ, 10/09/2018
Coroners Act, application to hold inquest where state coroner has refused the application, whether inquest would be “in the public interest”
Davis v Ryan, State Coroner [2019] QCA 282; Brisbane, Lynham DCJ, 03/12/2019
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where the application for leave to appeal was filed out of time – where the decision the subject of the application was forwarded to the applicant at the wrong email address – where the applicant acted promptly to file his application once he received the judgment – whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for leave to appeal.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – JUDICIAL REVIEW – REVIEWABLE DECISIONS AND CONDUCT – DISCRETION NOT TO ENTERTAIN APPLICATION – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied to the District Court for an order to hold an inquest into the death of his late wife – where the District Court judge was not satisfied under s 30(8) of the Coroners Act 2003 that holding an inquest would be in the public interest, and dismissed the application – where the applicant sought leave to appeal from the District Court judge’s decision – whether leave is necessary in order to correct a substantial injustice – whether there is a reasonable argument that the District Court judge committed House v The King error in forming the discretionary judgment that he was not satisfied that holding an inquest was in the public interest – whether the District Court judge misconstrued the term “public interest” in s 30(8) – whether the District Court judge took into account irrelevant considerations by having regard to the State Coroner’s views as to the utility of an inquest and the availability of resources, and to opinion evidence from doctors – whether the District Court judge failed to have regard to a relevant consideration as to an alleged widespread dangerous prescribing practice or simply did not make the finding of fact the applicant sought.
Gentner v Barnes [2009] QDC 307; Maroochydore, J.M. Robertson, 30/09/2009
Coroners Act, application to hold inquest where State Coroner has refused the application, whether inquest would be “in the public interest’, nature of test to be applied, consideration of State Coroners Guidelines in relation to inconsistency and/or uncertainty in evidence relating to the cause of fatal accident, consideration of views of family of deceased person in relation to the issue of public confidence in the administration of justice, delay and consideration of earlier decision by local Coroner to hold inquest.
Kontvainis-Hay v Hutton [2012]; Brisbane, J. Douglas, 12/11/2012
Morant v Terry Ryan (The State Coroner) [2022] QDC 134; Brisbane, Loury QC DCJ, 10/06/2022
CORONER – INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES – where an application to hold an inquest in circumstances where the State Coroner has refused to do so – whether inquest would be in the public interest
Parsons v Ryan (State Coroner) [2022] QDC 237; Brisbane Prskalo A/DCJ 04/11/2022
MAGISTRATES – CORONERS – INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES – where there is an application for an order by the District Court under s 11A Coroners Act 2003 that a death is a ‘reportable death’ on the basis that it meets the statutory definition of a ‘health care related death’ under s 10AA – where the application is refused on the basis that the objective requirements of s 10AA were not satisfied by the evidence.