R v Doogan; ex parte Lucas-Smith

The case before the court was an application by several prosecutors for an order prohibiting the coroner, Maria Doogan, from proceeding with the evidence of two experts in her ongoing inquest and inquiry. The coroner had declined to direct the production of certain documents relating to the experts' reports. The legal issues before the court were whether the coroner had failed to afford procedural fairness to the prosecutors and whether the coroner had erred in her interpretation of the law in relation to the production of documents in expert evidence. The court found that the coroner had indeed failed to afford procedural fairness to the prosecutors and that her decision to not direct the production of certain documents was flawed. The court noted that the coroner had not considered the special features of expert evidence and had not applied the relevant principles in relation to the production of documents in expert evidence. The court also noted that the concept of discovery was inapplicable to coronial proceedings but that a procedure analogous to the production of documents under a subpoena for production should have been followed. The court found that the prosecutors were entitled to relief under s 34B of the Supreme Court Act 1933. The court made orders prohibiting the coroner from proceeding with the evidence of the two experts until certain documents were produced for inspection by the prosecutors. The orders were not to be overly prescriptive and allowed for evaluation by the coroner of material produced. The court noted that the Director of Public Prosecutions had proposed orders that reflected an accommodation of the legal principles and that the coroner should have the opportunity to consider those orders. The court also noted that Mr Cheney or Mr Roche may want to be heard on the question of inspection.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the special features of expert evidence and the principles in relation to the production of documents in expert evidence in coronial proceedings. The court also emphasized the need for procedural fairness in such proceedings and the need for a flexible approach to the production of documents. The decision serves as a reminder to coroners and legal practitioners involved in coronial proceedings to consider the relevant legal principles and to strive for procedural fairness in their conduct of such proceedings.