Bell v Deputy Coroner of South Australia (No 2)

In Bell v Deputy Coroner of South Australia (No 2), the plaintiffs sought judicial review of the Deputy Coroner's decisions and actions in an inquest into the death of a prisoner. The plaintiffs challenged the Coroner's alleged misunderstanding of penalty privilege and his findings concerning non-compliance with a standard operating procedure. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues the Court had to address were whether the Coroner had correctly understood and applied the concept of penalty privilege and whether the Coroner had overstepped his authority by making findings of non-compliance that could be interpreted as findings of misconduct.

The Court found that the Coroner had indeed misunderstood the scope of penalty privilege, which is not abrogated by the Coroners Act 2003 and can be a ground for a witness to decline to answer a question or produce a document at an inquest. However, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs had not established that the Coroner had made any findings or suggestions of misconduct in breach of the Act. The Court emphasised that the Coroner's actions in the December ruling did not extend to any risk that he would make such findings in the section 25 report. The Court concluded that while the plaintiffs had legitimate concerns based on the Coroner's statements, the detailed examination of the matter in the Court's judgment should sufficiently caution the Coroner against any such findings in future reports.

The Court issued a declaration that penalty privilege is not abrogated by the Coroners Act 2003 and, if established, affords a ground entitling a witness to decline to answer a question or produce a document at the inquest. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' action otherwise and ordered that the plaintiffs pay 45 per cent of the third defendant's costs of action, to be adjudicated if not agreed. This decision underscores the importance of understanding and correctly applying legal principles in the context of inquests, while also recognising the need for judicial caution to prevent any perception of overreach by the Coroner.