Legal Research
Cases
Priest v West

Priest v West

Case [2012] VSCA 327 20 December 2012

Jurisdiction

Statutory Interpretation

Compensatory Damages

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2010 0140

JEAN MARIE PRIEST	Appellant
	v
IAIN WEST (In his capacity as Deputy State Coroner of Victoria) and DEREK PERCY	First Respondent
	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, HARPER and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	12 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 December 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 327
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Jean Marie Priest v Deputy State Coroner and Derek Percy [2010] VSC 449

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Coroner – inquest into the death of a child – Reportable death – Obligation to find, if possible, the cause of death and circumstances in which the death occurred – Coroner excluded statements about the circumstances of the deaths of five other children – Propensity evidence – Whether statements were relevant considerations that the Coroner was obliged to take into account – Pfennig v The Queen (1995) 182 CLR 461 – Section 67(1)(b) and s 67(1)(c) of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic).

CORONER – Whether witness should be compelled to give evidence under s 57(4) of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) – Reliability of the evidence relevant to whether the ‘interests of justice’ required that witness give evidence – Inquisitorial character of coronial inquest – Weinstein v Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria (2008) 21 VR 29 – Distinction between ‘salient facts’ and mere ‘pieces of evidence’ – Macedon Ranges Shire Council v RomseyHotel Pty Ltd (2008) 19 VR 422.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Section 57(3) of the Coroners Court Act 2008 (Vic) – Whether Coroner obliged to inform witness that he would be given a certificate of immunity if he willingly gave evidence – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S Gillespie-Jones with Ms E McKinnon	Magazis (Theo) & Associates
No appearance for the First Respondent
For the Second Respondent	Mr C G Fairfield	Frank Randle

---

MAXWELL P
HARPER JA:

We have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Tate JA. We gratefully adopt her Honour’s comprehensive account of the factual and legal background and exposition of the grounds of appeal. We respectfully agree that both of the rulings of the Coroner should be set aside and, subject to what follows, we do so for the reasons which her Honour gives.

The nature of the Coroner’s function

The issues raised by this appeal focus attention on the Coroner’s function under the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) (the ‘Act’) and on the scope of the inquiries which the Coroner must undertake. The Preamble to the Act defines the role of the coronial system as (relevantly) ‘the independent investigation of deaths … for the purpose of finding the causes of those deaths’.

As Tate JA points out,[1] the Act declares — unequivocally — that the Coroner’s investigative function is inquisitorial in nature.[2] The Coroner must therefore be an active investigator of the death in question. There being no parties to an inquest (although interested parties may be given leave to…

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 Priest v West

Details

AGLC: Jean Marie Priest v Iain West (In his capacity as Deputy State Coroner of Victoria) and Derek Percy and Second Respondent [2012] VSCA 327
Case: [2012] VSCA 327
Decision Date: 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Priest v West involved the respondent, the Coroner, conducting an inquest into the death of a child. The inquest was held under the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) and was categorised as a reportable death, meaning the Coroner was required to find the cause of death and the circumstances in which it occurred, if possible. The Coroner excluded statements about the circumstances of the deaths of five other children, and the appellant argued these were relevant considerations the Coroner was obliged to take into account.

The legal issues included whether the Coroner was required to consider the circumstances of the deaths of five other children, and whether the Coroner was obliged to inform a witness that he would be given a certificate of immunity if he willingly gave evidence. The appellant contended that the Coroner should have considered the other deaths and that the witness should have been informed of the immunity certificate. The respondent argued that the other deaths were not relevant and that the witness did not need to be informed of the immunity certificate.

The court found that the Coroner was not obliged to consider the circumstances of the other deaths and that there was no requirement to inform the witness of the immunity certificate. The court held that the Coroner’s exclusion of the statements about the other deaths was justified as they were not relevant to the circumstances of the child's death. Additionally, the court determined that while the witness should have been informed of the immunity certificate, the failure to do so did not affect the outcome of the inquest.

The appeal was allowed, and the decision of the Coroner was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Coroner for further consideration in light of the court's findings.

Orders