A DIRECTIVE from the Attorney General for a fresh inquest to be held into the death of a man four years ago was challenged by Dublin City Coroner, Dr Brian Farrell, in the High Court yesterday.
Mr Justice Smyth, who reserved judgment, was told that in December 1992, Dr Farrell held an inquest into the death of Mr Thomas Doherty (54), of Kilcross Grove, Sandyford, Co Dublin.
The Attorney General had stated a fresh inquest was desirable having regard to the coroner's failure to disclose to the jury matters in the autopsy report concerning the existence of hospital records from an earlier admission of Mr Doherty to St Vincent's Hospital, Dublin, documenting an allergy to penicillin.
The Attorney General had also submitted that if the information about the documented allergy was revealed to the jury inquest, general recommendations designed to prevent further such fatalities might have been made to the jury.
Yesterday's hearing before Mr Justice Smyth was a rehearing of a similar application by Dr Farrell to quash the Attorney General's decision. Last year, Mr Justice Murphy held that Section 24 of the 1962 Coroners Act did not authorise the Attorney General to direct a new inquest.
The Supreme Court on appeal held that Mr Justice Murphy's decision that the Attorney General had not the authority was a new ground which the judge had added of own volition and the Attorney General had not been given an opportunity to respond.
The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the High Court for a new hearing and asked the court to consider Mr Justice Murphy's additional reason.
Mr Justice Smyth was also asked to consider a further ground. Dr Farrell claimed he was not told of representations made on behalf of Mr Doherty's widow and was not given an opportunity of responding to those complaints before the Attorney General ordered a new inquest.
Mr Brian McGovern SC, for Dr Farrell, said his client objected to the implication that he had acted improperly or that he was not fit to continue as coroner.
Dr Farrell, in an affidavit, said Mr Doherty died suddenly when undergoing a routine operation and he directed an inquest should be held.
The central issue, said Dr Farrell, was whether Mr Doherty died as a result of the administration of a test dose of Augmentin (penicillin) or whether death was attributable to some other cause.
Medical evidence, said Dr Farrell, did not conclusively prove an allergic reaction to Augment in had occurred. While such a reaction was possible, medical evidence was to the effect that this did not cause the death.
If such a reaction occurred, it was in a setting where the patient was anaesthetised and ventilated and appropriate drugs were given to counteract cardiac arrest.
This, said Dr Farrell, strongly suggested some other factor caused or strongly contributed to the death. This other factor emerged during evidence from a pathologist who found a moderately severe degree of coronary arterial disease with a significantly enlarged heart and evidence of aortic valvular disease.
Dr Farrell added that Mrs Doherty gave evidence and specifically confirmed, following a question from him, that her husband had been allergic to penicillin.
Dr Farrell said Mr Doherty's allergy was disclosed to the jury and was reflected in the terms of the jury's verdict. In those circumstances he was at a loss to understand how the Attorney General could properly contend he was dissatisfied with the inquest.
Ms Eleanor McPhillips, a solicitor in the Chief State Solicitor's office, in an affidavit said the Attorney General's decision to direct a new inquest did not interfere or overturn the exercise by any person of a judicial power or the administration of justice.
Ms McPhillips said the reason for directing a fresh inquest was not a failure by Dr Farrell to disclose to the jury evidence concerning the nature of the dead man's allergy but the failure to disclose evidence concerning the existence of hospital records documenting Mr Doherty's allergy.