S v The Director of Public Prosecutions

The case of S v The Director of Public Prosecutions involved a dispute concerning the suitability of a Registrar of the Magistrates Court to act as a Coroner, and the appropriateness of an Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Public Servant adjudicating a matter in which the ACT was a party. The decision also addressed the validity of certain comments made in a Coroner's report, questioning whether they were supported by evidence and whether procedural fairness was afforded to the applicant.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate for the Registrar to act as Coroner, given the separation of powers doctrine, and whether it was appropriate for an ACT Public Servant to adjudicate when the ACT was an interested party. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the adverse comments in the Coroner's report were supported by evidence, and whether procedural fairness was afforded to the applicant.

The court found that the Registrar of the Magistrates Court was not appropriately positioned to act as Coroner due to the separation of powers doctrine. The court also ruled that an ACT Public Servant should not adjudicate a matter where the ACT was a party, as it could lead to a conflict of interest. Regarding the Coroner's report, the court determined that some of the adverse comments were not supported by evidence and that the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness. Consequently, the court quashed certain comments from the Coroner's report.

The court ordered that specific comments from the Coroner's report be quashed, including those that criticised the applicant's failure to use a bougie, hindered the doctor's attempts to intubate the deceased, and failed to comply with instructions to bag and ventilate the deceased. The court also quashed comments that found the applicant's failure was a factor in the overall failure to provide an adequate supply of oxygen to the deceased.