DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Morant v Terry Ryan (The State Coroner) [2022] QDC 134
PARTIES:
ANGUS MORANT
(applicant)
v
TERRY RYAN (THE STATE CORONER)
(respondent)
FILE NO:
BD 3189/21
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application – s 30(6) Coroners Act 2003 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
10 June 2022
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
16 May 2022
JUDGE:
Loury QC DCJ
ORDER:
The application is refused
CATCHWORDS:
CORONER – INQUESTS AND INQUIRIES – where an application to hold an inquest in circumstances where the State Coroner has refused to do so – whether inquest would be in the public interest
LEGISLATION:
Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) s 28, s 30(6)
CASES:
R v Morant (2020) 286 A Crim R 148
COUNSEL: D Wells and M Thomas for the applicant
E Cooper for the Attorney-General of Queensland as amicus curiae
SOLICITORS: Tamborine Mountain Law & Canungra Law for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the Attorney-General of Queensland as amicus curiae
Introduction
Jennifer Morant died of carbon monoxide poisoning on 30 November 2014, suffered in her car. Her husband, Graham Morant was convicted by a jury of counselling and aiding her suicide. Mr Graham Morant’s conviction and sentence were the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 19 June 2020 the appeals were dismissed. On 30 July 2020 the Deputy State Coroner issued her formal findings pursuant to s 45 of the Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Act’) following a coronial investigation. She did not order that an inquest be held.
On 13 August 2020 the applicant (the son of Graham Morant and step-son of Jennifer Morant) applied to the State Coroner pursuant to s 30(4)(a) of the Act for an order that an inquest be held. On 24 November 2021 the State Coroner informed the applicant’s solicitor that he was not persuaded that it was in the public interest for an inquest to be held and declined to hold an inquest.
The applicant, Angus Morant now applies to this Court pursuant to s 30(6) of the Act for an order that an inquest be held.
The statutory framework
Section 30(6) of the Act provides for an application to be made to the District Court when the State Coroner has refused an application for an inquest. Such an order can only be made if the Court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to hold the inquest.[1]
[1] Coroners Act 2003 (Qld) s 30(8) (‘Coroners Act’).
Section 28 of the Act provides that for a coroner determining whether to hold an inquest, he/she similarly must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to hold the inquest. Section 28(2) provides for what the coroner must have regard to in deciding whether it is in the public interest to hold an inquest. It provides –
(2)In deciding whether it is in the public interest to hold an inquest, the coroner may consider –
(a)the extent to…
Continue reading Morant v Terry Ryan (The State Coroner)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Morant v Terry Ryan (The State Coroner) [2022] QDC 134
- Case
- [2022] QDC 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that it was more probable than not that someone else was present when Mrs Morant died. The court also took into account the findings of the Court of Appeal in R v Morant, which summarised the evidence at the trial and the issues that arose. The court found that the evidence did not support the applicant's claim that an inquest was in the public interest. The court held that the application for an inquest was refused. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of new evidence that would warrant an inquest and the absence of a demonstration that it was more probable than not that someone other than Graham Morant was involved in Mrs Morant's death. The orders of the court were that the application for an inquest was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application is refused
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.