JUDGE:	Ashley J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 and 12 August 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 December 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Domaszewicz v The State Coroner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 528

Coroners – findings made without inquest – subsequent order that inquest he held – false basis for assumption of jurisdiction to hold inquest – whether alternative basis for assumption of jurisdiction existed – whether all conditions antecedent to exercise of jurisdiction on available basis satisfied – whether coroner required to make finding in respect of matter dealt with by now–repealed s. 19(1)(e), Coroners Act 1985 – whether risk, in substance, of double jeopardy.

Coroners Act 1985, ss 15, 17, 18, 19, 59, 59A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M. Dean SC with Mr P. Rozen Dr S. Donaghue	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
For the Defendant	Ms P. Tate SC, Solicitor-General with Mr C. M. Caleo	Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Statement of the Case

Jaidyn Leskie, a young child, disappeared on the night of 14 - 15 June 1997. The plaintiff, Greg Domaszewiez, was charged with his murder on 16 July that year. The child's body was found on 1 January 1998. The plaintiff was tried. On 4 December 1998 he was found not guilty. The child’s father requested an inquest on 14 December 1998, and his mother made such a request on 21 October 1999. On 29 January 2002 a Deputy State Coroner (conveniently “the Deputy Coroner”) appointed pursuant to the Coroners Act 1985 (“the Act”) determined not to hold an inquest, and provided reasons.

The fact that the Deputy Coroner determined not to hold an inquest does not mean that he did not investigate Jaidyn Leskie’s death. He did investigate, and he prepared a record of his investigation. Dated 22 May 2002, it set out certain findings. They were silent upon a number of questions – particularly, how death occurred. The following day the Registrar of the Coroner's Court wrote to the parents saying that the investigation was now concluded.

Thereafter, the child’s father and his family and the child’s mother made further requests that an inquest be held. The father and his family made a request for review, emphasising the breadth of the range of matters which needed investigation. The mother sought, by her solicitor, orders declaring the findings of the Deputy Coroner void and for a re-opening of the inquest. The solicitor referred to s. 59A of the Act.

Following communications between police officers and the State Coroner (conveniently, “the Coroner” except where the context shows otherwise), the Principal Registrar of the Coroner's Court advised the mother's solicitor on 21 July 2003 that the State Coroner had reviewed additional material, had granted the mother’s application, and had ordered that an inquest be held.

The matter came before the Coroner on 26 September 2003.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Domaszewicz v State Coroner

Details

AGLC: Domaszewicz v State Coroner [2004] VSC 528
Case: [2004] VSC 528
Decision Date: 17 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Domaszewicz v State Coroner, the dispute involved the jurisdiction of a coroner to hold an inquest into the death of a prisoner, without the usual prior determination of the cause of death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue was whether the coroner had the jurisdiction to hold an inquest based on the grounds that had initially been deemed insufficient, and if so, whether the conditions required for such jurisdiction were satisfied. Additionally, the court examined whether the coroner was obligated to make a finding in respect of a matter that was now repealed by the Coroners Act 1985.

The court considered whether the initial assumption of jurisdiction was based on a false premise and if an alternative basis existed for the coroner's jurisdiction. It also evaluated whether all the conditions antecedent to the exercise of jurisdiction were fulfilled. Furthermore, the court deliberated on whether the coroner was required to make a finding in relation to a matter that had been repealed, and whether such a requirement would, in essence, constitute a risk of double jeopardy. The court found that the coroner did not have jurisdiction to hold an inquest under the original grounds, but did have an alternative basis for jurisdiction. It held that all conditions antecedent to the exercise of jurisdiction on the available basis were satisfied. The court concluded that the coroner was not required to make a finding in respect of the repealed matter, as doing so would not, in substance, pose a risk of double jeopardy.

The court's decision ultimately led to the quashing of the coroner's order for an inquest. The court ordered that the coroner's decision be set aside, and that no further inquest be held without proper jurisdiction and basis. This ruling underscored the importance of clear and valid jurisdictional grounds in coroners' proceedings and the necessity of adhering to legislative conditions when exercising such jurisdiction.

Orders