Full judgment: Carroll_v_Coroners_Court_.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2012-404-4779

[2013] NZHC 906
UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972
IN THE MATTER OF a decision made by Coroner Peter Ryan following an inquest into the death of Iraena Rama Te Awhina Asher
BETWEEN BOBBIE JOAN CARROLL, JULIA LETICIA WOODHOUSE AND HENRY JOHN WOODHOUSE Applicants
AND THE CORONER'S COURT AT AUCKLAND First Respondent
AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Second Respondent
Hearing: 19 March 2013
Counsel: G N Gallaway for the applicants G Coumbe as amicus S W McKenzie for the Police
Judgment: 29 April 2013

[1] In the early hours of 11 October 2004 Iraena Asher, a 25 year old woman, disappeared into the night at Piha, a rural beach side area west of Auckland. She was never seen again. The three applicants, Ms Carroll, Ms Woodhouse and Mr Woodhouse, cared for Iraena in the hours preceding her death, having earlier found her wandering near the road, semi-clothed and distressed. Immediately following a coronial inquest into her death, held in July 2012, the Coroner issued a finding in which he concluded that Iraena had walked into the sea at Piha Beach and drowned. In the course of his finding he discussed in some detail the applicants’ decision not to call the Police when they came to Iraena’s assistance. He concluded that the applicants’ decision not to contact Police was a contributing factor in Iraena’s death.

[2] The applicants challenge that finding on three bases. They say it was unreasonable because there was no evidence upon which it could properly be based. Secondly, it was made in breach of s 15(2)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 (the Act), which obliged the Coroner to give the applicants prior notice of his intention to comment adversely upon their conduct and an opportunity to be heard in relation to that comment. Finally, they say that the finding was otherwise made in breach of the principles of natural justice because the applicants had no notice that their conduct was likely to be the subject of scrutiny at the inquest.

[3] The applicants seek to have the finding quashed and costs awarded in their favour.

[4] Because the first respondent, the Coroner’s Court at Auckland, abides the decision of the Court, I appointed Ms Coumbe as amicus to assist the Court by raising arguments which could properly be made and which would not otherwise be covered in argument before me. The second respondent, the New Zealand Police (the Police), was joined to the proceedings by the applicants, as I understand it, because the Statement of Claim contains allegations concerning the conduct of the Police which it is suggested contributed to a breach of the applicants’ right to fair procedure.

[5] I have concluded that all three grounds of review are made out. The Coroner’s finding that the applicants’ decision not to call the Police was a contributing factor in Iraena’s death was unreasonable, as it had no proper evidential foundation. Rather, it was based upon speculation as to a possible outcome if events had occurred differently. Moreover, the requirements of s 15(2)(b) and natural justice as applicable in the context of a coronial inquest were not complied with. It is therefore appropriate to quash the Coroner’s comments in relation to the applicants. I set out the reasons for this conclusion below.

[...]

Full judgment: Carroll_v_Coroners_Court_.pdf

© Scoop Media