Roe v Coroner Urquhart - [2021] WASC 397

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   ROE -v- CORONER URQUHART [2021] WASC 397
CORAM:   SMITH J
HEARD:   8 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   8 NOVEMBER 2021
PUBLISHED           :   11 NOVEMBER 2021
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2153 of 2021
BETWEEN:   ROSEMARY ROE
First Plaintiff
ALICIA ROE
Second Plaintiff
AND
CORONER URQUHART
Defendant

Catchwords:

Coroners Act 1996 (WA) - Application made by senior next of kin for an order that no post mortem examination be performed - Whether it is desirable in all the circumstances to make an order directing the Coroner not perform post mortem examination - Relevance of spiritual and cultural beliefs - Public interest considered - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Coroners Act 1996 (WA), s 25, s 35

Result:

Application granted
Order made - no further post mortem be performed on the body of the deceased

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff	:	In Person
Second Plaintiff	:	In Person
Defendant	:	BD Nelson

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff	:	In Person
Second Plaintiff	:	In Person
Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office

Cases referred to in decision:

Evans v Coroner [2011] NTSC 100; (2011) 214 A Crim R 444
Paterson v Coroner King [2019] WASC 25
Re Death of Simon Unchango (Jnr); Ex parte Simon Unchango (Snr) (1997) 95 A Crim R 65

SMITH J:

(These reasons were delivered extemporaneously at the conclusion of the hearing. They have been edited from the transcript to correct matters of grammar, and to include complete references in the form of footnotes.)

Introduction

By a notice of originating motion filed on 1 November 2021, the plaintiffs made an application, pursuant to s 37(3) of the Coroners Act1996 (WA), for an order that no post mortem be performed of the body deceased, Mr Aubrey Ronald Roe.
Mr Roe died on 13 October 2021. He was 56 years old.
The plaintiffs are the daughter of Mr Roe, Ms Alicia Rondell Roe who is his senior next of kin,[1] and his sister, Ms Rosemary Carmel Roe.
[1] As defined in the order of priority in s 37(5) of the Coroners Act 1996 (WA).

The evidence

In support of their application, the plaintiffs each swore an affidavit on 5 November 2021 in which they set out their relationship to Mr Roe and the reasons why they oppose a full post mortem examination of his body. The plaintiffs also filed an affidavit sworn by Mr Roe's oldest child, his son Richard James Roe on 7 November 2021.
The defendant, Coroner Urquhart, opposes the order sought by the plaintiffs. The Coroner filed two affidavits in support of his case. The first is an affidavit by the Principal Registrar of the Coroner's Court, Ms Kelly Marie Niclair affirmed on 4 November 2021, and an affidavit of Dr Joe Wen Ong, affirmed on 4 November 2021.

The circumstances of the death of the deceased

At about 00.31am on 13 October 2021, Mr Roe was seen alive at the Victoria Park transfer station in Burswood. CCTV…

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 Roe v Coroner Urquhart

Details

AGLC: Roe v Coroner Urquhart [2021] WASC 397
Case: [2021] WASC 397
Decision Date: 11 NOVEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roe v Coroner Urquhart involves an application by the senior next of kin of an individual who had died, requesting an order that no post mortem examination be performed. The application was made under the Coroners Act 1996 (WA). The deceased's family objected to the post mortem due to their spiritual and cultural beliefs, which they considered incompatible with such an examination. The Coroner, Urquhart, had to determine whether it was desirable, in all circumstances, to make an order directing that the post mortem not be performed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the spiritual and cultural beliefs of the deceased's family were sufficient grounds to prevent a post mortem examination, and how these beliefs should be weighed against the public interest in determining the cause of death. The court had to consider the balance between respecting the family's religious and cultural views and the potential public interest benefits of conducting a post mortem.

The court found that the family's beliefs were genuine and significantly impacted their wishes regarding the deceased's body. The Coroner's decision to proceed with the post mortem was challenged on the basis that it did not adequately consider the family's spiritual and cultural objections. The court recognised the importance of these beliefs but also acknowledged the public interest in understanding the cause of death, which could assist in preventing future fatalities. Ultimately, the court determined that the family's cultural and spiritual objections were compelling enough to warrant an order preventing the post mortem, as the public interest did not outweigh these deeply held beliefs in this particular case.

The court ordered that no post mortem examination be performed on the deceased. The decision underscores the importance of respecting the cultural and spiritual beliefs of the deceased's family while also acknowledging the role of the Coroner in serving the public interest. The court's ruling highlights the need for a nuanced approach in cases where such beliefs conflict with investigative procedures.

Orders