Coroners’ courts reform – Proper consultation is necessary

NOBODY questions the need for radical reform of Ireland’s outdated coroners’ courts but Justice Minister Michael McDowell’s approach to this issue leaves much to be desired.

According to the Coroners’ Society, the legislation being drafted would force a number of them to “relinquish their posts” rather than let them “bow out in a natural progression”, as Dr Ciaran McLoughlin succinctly put it.

It seems the Tánaiste risks creating an industrial relations problem where none exists. With a gun to their heads, the country’s 48 coroners are seeking legal advice and are on collision course with the Minister for Justice.

Basically, if someone dies in “unnatural circumstances” the coroner is responsible for holding an inquest into the death with the aim of determining the “who, when, where and how” the person’s life came to an end. Coroners probe the deaths of murder victims, or those killed in traffic accidents, or who who die in garda custody, in drug or alcohol-related circumstances, or commit suicide.

Instead of a consulting them on their future, the department approach is characteristic of Mr McDowell’s confrontational style of political management.

Under draft legislation expected to come before the Dáil early in 2007, the minister proposes to reduce significantly the 48 coroners currently operating in local authority districts. With the exception of a full-time coroner in Dublin, all are part-timers.

Ironically, calls for a radical overhaul of the system have been led by coroners at the coal face, who recognise that numbers need to be reduced. What they object to is the proposal to do this “without consultation” or consideration for peoples’ jobs.

To quote Dr McLoughlin, “there has been no consultation whatsoever regarding people being expected to relinquish their roles. This we saw for the first time in the draft bill. That’s the problem. We need some guarantees from the department that anyone deprived of their jobs will be compensated or facilitated.”

Up to now, the society understood that coroners who retired in the next few years would simply not be replaced while others could opt for early retirement.

Indeed, they welcomed Mr McDowell’s promise of new legislation to modernise death investigation, post-mortem and inquest procedures. That would ensure a better service for society in general and for the relatives of the deceased than is possible with the 1962 Coroners’ Act.

Under draft legislation, a centralised Coroner Service would be based in Navan. Its role would be taken out of the hands of the local authorities and governed by the Department of Justice. Overall, numbers would be cut and around 25 would be appointed in permanent jobs. That makes much sense.

However, instead of trampling on the rights of coroners, Mr McDowell should resolve this issue through consultation rather than confrontation.