Perre v Chivell

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.