Doomadgee v Clements

In the case of Doomadgee v Clements, the central dispute involved the handling of a coronial inquest into the death of an Aboriginal man, Mulrunji, who died while in police custody on Palm Island. The coroner had made preliminary rulings on the admissibility of evidence, which were subsequently challenged by applicants under the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld). The primary legal issues were whether the coroner improperly exercised her discretion in accepting propensity evidence and whether she erred in excluding the evidence of two complainants. The applicants argued that the coroner should have adopted a stricter approach in determining the admissibility of evidence and that she was bound by legal principles to consider certain evidence in her determination.

The court examined the scope of the coroner's discretion under the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) and the application of legal principles in the coroner's decision-making process. It was established that while the coroner was not bound by the rules of evidence, she was required to exercise her discretion in a manner consistent with the object of the Act. The court found that the coroner's decision to exclude certain evidence, particularly the propensity evidence, was erroneous as it was relevant and potentially available for use. However, the court also noted that the coroner was not obliged to admit all relevant evidence if its probative value was marginal or if it would unduly delay the proceedings.

Ultimately, the court determined that the coroner's exercise of discretion was not so flawed as to warrant judicial intervention. The court held that the coroner's reasons for excluding certain evidence were not erroneous and that the probative value of the excluded evidence was marginal. The applications were dismissed, and the coroner's preliminary rulings on evidence admissibility were upheld.