Perre v Chivell - [2000] SASC 279

PERRE v CHIVELL
[2000] SASC 279

Nyland J

These proceedings arise out of a coronial inquiry held with respect to the death of Geoffrey Leigh Bowen, a sergeant of police. Sergeant Bowen lost his life on 2 March 1994, when an explosion occurred at the office of the National Crime Authority, situated in the Commonwealth Public Service Credit Union building, Waymouth Street, Adelaide, South Australia.
The jurisdiction of the coroner to conduct such an inquiry is contained in s 12 of the Coroners Act 1975, as amended (“the Act”). Section 12(1)(a) empowers the coroner to hold an inquest in order to ascertain the cause or circumstances of “the death of any person by violent, unusual or unknown cause”. The powers and obligations of the coroner and matters relevant to the proceedings are to be found within ss 13 to 28A inclusive of the Act. Those provisions include the following:

The coroner may, by summons, require attendance at the inquest of any person [s 16(1)(a)].

The coroner may require a person to answer any relevant questions [s 16(1)(e)].

A person is not obliged to answer a question if the coroner is satisfied that the answer would tend to incriminate that person [s 16(2)].

The inquest is to be held by the coroner without a jury [s 19].

A person with sufficient interest in the subject or result of the inquest is entitled to appear personally or by counsel and may examine and cross-examine any witness testifying in the inquest [s 21(1) and (2)].

The coroner must act according to equity, good conscience and substantial merits of the case without regard to technicalities and legal forms and is not bound by the rules of evidence but inform himself or herself on any matter in such manner as he or she thinks fit [s 22].

A coroner must, as soon as practicable, after the completion of an inquest give his or her finding by writing in the prescribed form setting out as far as has been ascertained the cause and circumstances of the event that was the subject of the inquest [s 25(1)]

A coroner must not proceed with an inquest where a person has been charged in criminal proceedings with causing the event that is, or is to be, the subject of an inquest, unless the Attorney-General directs the coroner to do so [s 26(1)]

A coroner holding an inquest must not in the inquest make any finding, or suggestion, or criminal or civil liability [s 26(3)].

Section 28A enables the Attorney-General, or a person who has a sufficient interest in the finding made at an inquest, to make an application to the Supreme Court, for an order that a coroner’s finding be set aside.
Section 28A(3) provides:
“(3).. A finding will not be set aside under this section unless the Supreme Court is of the opinion -
(a).... that the finding is against the evidence or the weight of the evidence adduced before the coroner; or
(b) that it is desirable…

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 Perre v Chivell

Details

AGLC: Perre v Chivell [2000] SASC 279
Case: [2000] SASC 279
Decision Date: 24 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the proceedings before the Supreme Court of South Australia, the plaintiff, Domenic Perre, sought a review of the coroner's findings with respect to the death of Geoffrey Bowen, a police officer who died when a parcel bomb exploded in his hands. The coroner found that Perre was responsible for sending the bomb that killed Sergeant Bowen. Perre argued that the coroner's findings were against the weight of the evidence, were irregular, and that the coroner had relied on the decision of the High Court in Weissensteiner v R to reach his conclusions. Perre sought an order setting aside the coroner's findings, a declaration that the coroner was not permitted to make findings which were contrary to the provisions of s 26(3) of the Coroners Act 1975, and other relief. The court considered whether the coroner had acted ultra vires by making findings or suggestions of criminal liability against Perre and whether an irregularity had occurred by reason of the coroner's reliance on Weissensteiner in reaching his conclusions.

The court examined the historical development of the office of the coroner and the legislative history of s 26 of the Coroners Act 1975. It concluded that the coroner's role is limited to making findings of fact, not attributing or hinting at blame. The court found that the coroner's statements in question were relevant findings of fact which did not offend against the provisions of s 26(3). It also held that the coroner's reliance on Weissensteiner did not result in an impermissible process of reasoning or irregularity, as the coroner had heard evidence from numerous witnesses, carefully analysed the evidence, and assessed the credibility of the witnesses.

In conclusion, the court found that the coroner's findings were not against the weight of the evidence or irregular, and that the coroner had not acted ultra vires or relied on Weissensteiner in an inappropriate manner. The orders sought by Perre were refused.

The final orders of the court are as follows:

1. The orders sought by the plaintiff in his summons dated 14 October 1999 (as amended) are refused.

Orders