Traynor v Spooner - [2012] VSC 651

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2012 6586

BETWEEN

JOE TRAYNOR and MICHELLE WEBSDALE	Appellants
v
HEATHER SPOONER (in her capacity as Coroner of the Coroners Court Of Victoria)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	DIGBY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 December 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Traynor v Spooner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 651	First Revision: 18 February 2013

---

CORONERS COURT – Appeal on a question of law against Coroner’s direction to perform autopsy – Coroner believed autopsy necessary for investigation of death – Death appears accidental – No evidence of foul play – Mechanism of death known – Not open to find autopsy necessary – Coroner required to consider whether autopsy appropriate as well as necessary – Coroner failed to consider whether autopsy appropriate – Errors of law made out – Appeal allowed – Autopsy should not be performed – Consideration of approach to be taken by Coroner in appeals under Pt 7 of Coroners Act 2008 – Coroners Act 2008 ss 25, 26, 67, 79(1), 88.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellants	Mr I R L Freckelton SC	Russell Kennedy
For the Respondent	Ms F M Ellis	Sarah Gebert, Coroners Court of Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an appeal, under s 79(1) of the Coroners Act 2008 (Vic) (“the Act”), against a Coroner’s direction to perform an autopsy on Sarah Michelle Traynor, a 7 year old girl.

On 21 November 2012 Sarah was found unconscious in the backyard of her family home. She was hanging from a skipping rope attached to a swing set. She was rushed to hospital where she later died. The police investigation concluded that Sarah’s death was an accident. However, the respondent, the Coroner investigating Sarah’s death, directed that an autopsy be performed on Sarah’s body. The appellants, Sarah’s parents, appeal against the Coroner’s decision.

Under s 25 of the Act, a Coroner must direct an autopsy if he or she considers that ‘the autopsy is necessary for the investigation of the death’ and that ‘it is appropriate to give the direction’. The Coroner’s reasons in this case stated that the autopsy was ‘necessary’ in relation to the investigation of Sarah’s death.

The position taken by the Coroner on the appeal was that the Coroner did not oppose the appeal. The Coroner informed the Court that she, in effect, took the position of a party suggested by the High Court in The Queen v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; Ex parte Hardiman.[1]
[1](1980) 144 CLR 13, 35–36.

For reasons that follow, I find that the Coroner failed to apply the correct statutory test which required her Honour to consider not only whether the autopsy was ‘necessary’ but also whether it was ‘appropriate’. I also find that there was no evidence to support the Coroner’s belief that the autopsy was ‘necessary’ in the particular circumstances of this case. I conclude that the autopsy…

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 Traynor v Spooner

Details

AGLC: Traynor v Spooner [2012] VSC 651
Case: [2012] VSC 651
Decision Date: 3 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Traynor v Spooner involved an appeal against a Coroner’s decision to perform an autopsy. The deceased, Traynor, had died in what appeared to be an accidental manner, with no evidence of foul play, and the mechanism of death was known. Spooner, the Coroner, directed an autopsy, which was contested by Traynor’s family. The dispute was brought before the Coroners Court to determine the legality of the Coroner’s decision.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Coroner had correctly exercised their discretion in directing an autopsy under the provisions of the Coroners Act 2008. The court needed to assess if the Coroner had correctly applied the law in finding that an autopsy was necessary. The court also had to consider if the Coroner appropriately assessed whether the autopsy was appropriate, not just necessary, as per the statutory requirements.

The Coroners Court found that the Coroner had erred in law by not considering whether the autopsy was appropriate as well as necessary. The court held that the Coroner was required to consider both the necessity and appropriateness of the autopsy. Given the circumstances, where the mechanism of death was known and there was no indication of foul play, the court concluded that the Coroner's decision to direct an autopsy was not supported by the law. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and determined that an autopsy should not be performed. The court provided guidance on the approach Coroners should take when considering appeals under Part 7 of the Coroners Act 2008.

As a result of the court’s decision, the final order was that the appeal was allowed, and the Coroner’s direction to perform an autopsy was set aside. The court emphasised the importance of considering both necessity and appropriateness in such decisions, ensuring that the rights of the deceased’s family are respected.

Orders