Triffitt v McTaggart - [2021] TASSC 26

[2021] TASSC 26

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Triffitt v McTaggart [2021] TASSC 26

PARTIES:  TRIFFITT, Keturah Matepi
  v
  McTAGGART, Olivia

FILE NO:  1360/2021
DELIVERED ON:  11 June 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11 June 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Coroners – Autopsy or post mortem – Application that autopsy not be performed – Religious beliefs – Foul play unable to be ruled out.

Coroners Act 1995 (Tas), s 36(3).
Aust Dig Magistrates [1369]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  In person
           Attorney-General:  G Chen
Solicitors:
           Attorney-General:  Solicitor-General

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 26
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 26/2021
File No 1360/2021

KETURAH MATEPI TRIFFITT v OLIVIA McTAGGART

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

(Edited version of reasons given orally) 11 June 2021

This is an application for an order under s 38(3) of the Coroners Act 1995 for an autopsy not to be performed on the body of the late Stella Joan Fraser.
Ms Fraser lived alone at Ouse. She was 72 years old. It appears that she was last seen alive at the Lachlan Hotel at Ouse on Friday last, 4 June 2021, when she left the hotel sometime after 6pm having dined there.
She was reported missing by her daughter, Mrs Triffitt, on the evening of Monday 7 June. Her body was reported found by a neighbour the next morning, Wednesday 8 June. Her body was found in a river about 250 metres from her home. She appeared to have drowned.
Ms Fraser was a Christian. She held very strong beliefs about the sanctity of the human body, the resurrection of the dead, and life after death. Because of her beliefs she would not have wanted an autopsy to have been conducted upon her body. Mrs Triffitt respects and shares her mother's beliefs.
In this State there is legislation that empowers a coroner to conduct an investigation into the death of any person whose death appears to have been unexpected or to have resulted from an accident. There are other circumstances in which inquests can be ordered. The starting point though is that s 19 of the Coroners Act requires a death to be reported to either the coroner or a police officer if the death appears to be unexpected or accidental, amongst other things.
A report was made to a coroner, Mrs McTaggart, who is the respondent to the application that is now before me. Under s 28 of the Coroners Act a coroner has a duty, if possible, to make findings as to how a reported death occurred and the cause of death.
Under s 36(1) of the Coroners Act if a coroner believes that an autopsy is necessary for the investigation of a death, and believes that reasonably, then the coroner may require the State Forensic Pathologist to perform an autopsy. The coroner decided that it was necessary for an autopsy to be performed, and Mrs Triffitt was notified in her capacity as the…

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 Triffitt v McTaggart

Details

AGLC: Triffitt v McTaggart [2021] TASSC 26
Case: [2021] TASSC 26
Decision Date: 11 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Magistrates Court was presented with an application from Triffitt, the next of kin of the deceased, McTaggart, to prevent the performance of an autopsy. The application was based on Triffitt's religious beliefs, specifically the Christian Science faith, which opposes autopsies. The court had to consider whether to grant the application despite the magistrate's suspicion of foul play, which could not be ruled out. The legal issues revolved around the balance between respecting the deceased's religious beliefs and the magistrate's duty to investigate potential foul play.

The court examined the statutory framework governing autopsies and the coroner's powers, as well as the principles of natural justice and the rights of the next of kin. The court found that while the next of kin's religious beliefs were entitled to respect, the potential for foul play necessitated an autopsy to ensure a proper investigation. The court held that the magistrate's duty to investigate possible foul play outweighed the next of kin's religious objections, and the application was dismissed.

The court ordered that an autopsy be performed on the deceased's body to ascertain the cause of death, allowing the magistrate to fulfil their duty to investigate any potential foul play. The court acknowledged the sensitivity of the next of kin's religious beliefs but ultimately determined that the need for a thorough investigation took precedence. The decision underscored the importance of balancing religious beliefs with the coroner's duty to conduct a proper investigation in cases where foul play cannot be ruled out.

Orders