Mauceri v Deputy State Coroner MacMahon - [2017] NSWSC 545

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Mauceri v Deputy State Coroner MacMahon and ors. [2017] NSWSC 545
Hearing dates: 20 April 2017
Date of orders: 10 May 2017
Decision date: 10 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) The proceedings are dismissed.
(2) In the absence of agreement, the parties are to provide to my Associate written submissions as to costs by 5.00pm on 17 May 2017, such submissions not to exceed two pages in length in each case.
Catchwords: CORONERS – Application for an order quashing coronial inquest into death and ordering fresh inquest - Where juvenile killed whilst riding bicycle – Where Coroner found that police were not in pursuit – Whether finding open – Whether Coroner correctly interpreted provisions of relevant policy – Whether Coroner’s inquiry sufficient
Legislation Cited: Coroners Act 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Burrell v R (2008) 238 CLR 218; [2008] HCA 34
Cecil v Attorney-General of NSW and anor [2012] NSWSC 1186
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Limited (1993) 43 FCR 280
Country Energy v Deputy State Coroner Paul MacMahon and anor [2010] NSWSC 943
Ex Parte Minister of Justice; re Malcolm; re Inglis [1965] NSWR 1598
Director-General Department of Community Services v Crombie [1998] NSWSC (unreported) 19 August 1998
Herron v Attorney-General of NSW (1987) 8 NSWLR 601
Veitch v The State Coroner [2008] WASC 187
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jo-Anna Mauceri – Plaintiff
Deputy State Coroner MacMahon – First defendant
Attorney-General of NSW – Second defendant
NSW Commissioner of Police – Third defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
J. Brock – Plaintiff
S. Beckett – Second defendant
D. Hume – Third defendant
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW - Plaintiff
Submitting appearance - First defendant
Crown Solicitor for NSW - Second defendant
McCabes Lawyers - Third defendant

File Number(s): 2016/91690
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Coroner’s Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Coronial Inquest

Date of Decision:

16 January 2015

Before:

Deputy State Coroner MacMahon

File Number(s):

2013/304282

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

By an amended summons filed on 18 October 2016 Jo-Anna Mauceri (“the plaintiff”) seeks the following relief:

An order that the inquest into the death of James Ciaparra be quashed pursuant to s. 85 of the Coroners Act 2009 (NSW).

An order that a new inquest be held pursuant to s. 85 of the Coroners Act 2009 (NSW).

Costs.

The amended summons pleads six separate grounds upon which the orders are sought, namely:

The Coroner wrongly interpreted and/or applied the NSW Police Force Safe Driver (sic) Policy in determining there had been no police pursuit commenced and in assessing the reasonableness of Constable Strzelecki's actions.

There was an insufficiency of inquiry by the Coroner into the issue of whether a police pursuit was commenced by Constable Strzelecki, particularly in circumstances in which counsel for the plaintiff was not permitted to continue to cross-examine Det. Superintendent Johnson on this issue.

It was not open to the Coroner on the available evidence to determine that it was…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mauceri v Deputy State Coroner MacMahon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 545
Decision Date: 10 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mauceri v Deputy State Coroner MacMahon involved an application for an order quashing a coronial inquest into the death of a juvenile who was killed while riding a bicycle. The applicant, seeking to challenge the Coroner's findings and process, sought an order for a fresh inquest. The Coroner had determined that the police were not in pursuit of the juvenile at the time of the incident. The High Court was tasked with determining whether this finding was open to the Coroner, whether the Coroner correctly interpreted the provisions of the relevant policy, and whether the Coroner's inquiry was sufficient.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Coroner was correct in concluding that the police were not in pursuit, whether this conclusion was open to the Coroner, and if the Coroner correctly interpreted the relevant policy provisions. The Court needed to assess the sufficiency of the Coroner's inquiry and determine if the process followed complied with legal standards. The interpretation of the policy and the Coroner's application of it were also central to the Court's decision.

The Court found that the Coroner's conclusion that the police were not in pursuit was open to them, given the evidence presented. The Court also determined that the Coroner correctly interpreted the relevant policy provisions. The inquiry was deemed sufficient as it met the legal standards required. The Court rejected the applicant's challenge to the Coroner's findings and process, holding that the Coroner's decisions were not flawed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for an order quashing the inquest and ordering a fresh one.

The Court's final orders were that the application was dismissed, with costs awarded against the applicant. The coronial inquest into the death of the juvenile remained in place, and the Coroner's findings and process were upheld. The Court's decision reinforced the principle that the Coroner's role in determining the circumstances of a death and the interpretation of relevant policies was to be respected, provided the process was legally sound.

Orders