A high Court judge has warned the widow of a Dublin man, who said she was "embarrassed" to attend the inquest into his death, that failure to attend the resumption of the inquest this week could lead to her imprisonment. Mr Justice Kelly issued the warning yesterday after he was told Ms Linda Lee has been refusing to attend the inquest hearings.
Ms Lee, of Seabury Park, Malahide, Co Dublin, is the widow of Mr Gerard Lee (31), who was shot dead at a birthday party in his honour in Coolock on March 9th, 1996.
A jury was sworn to hear an inquest into Mr Lee's death at the Dublin City Coroner's Court in October but it could not go ahead when Ms Lee failed to turn up.
Other witnesses and members of Mr Lee's family were present, and a letter from the Lee family to the coroner, Dr Brian Farrell, indicated they were frustrated by the delay in hearing the inquest.
Mr Justice Kelly, having been told yesterday that the inquest had had to be adjourned on five occasions, granted a mandatory order to the Attorney General requiring Ms Lee to attend on Thursday and to give evidence.
He advised her that, if she failed to comply with the order and failed to turn up, she would be in contempt of court. He said he wanted to make it clear to her that she ran the risk of imprisonment, not for any specified time, but until she purged her contempt.
The judge outlined that the Attorney General's application arose from the failure of the legislature to revise the provisions of the 1962 Coroners Act.
Two particular parts of the Act had been drawn to his attention. Section 37 prescribed a penalty of £5 in relation to people who, despite being summoned, did not attend an inquest either as jurors or witnesses. The penalty was now so small as to be derisory, the judge remarked.
Section 38 provided a mechanism whereby a coroner, if he or she believed a person attending an inquest had committed an offence, could refer the matter to the High Court. Mr Justice Kelly said it was a matter of near-certainty that Section 38 was unconstitutional having regard to previous legal decisions in the Haughey case of 1971 and Desmond v Glackin of 1993.
The judge said Ms Lee had told him she found responding to the summons an embarrassment. That was not a reason in law for failing to comply with the summons, he said.
Ms Lee was claiming the Attorney General was behaving in a manner inconsistent with his duties and obligations under the Constitution, Mr Justice Kelly added. He was satisfied Ms Lee's argument was incorrect. Not merely did the Attorney General have various functions devolved to him under the Constitution but also functions which he was called upon to exercise in the public interest.
Ms Lee, claimed the coroner's summons had no force and was statute-barred.
Mr Justice Kelly made an order that Ms Lee pay the State's costs in bringing the application.
Mr Gerard Hogan SC, for the Attorney General, had told the court Ms Lee was a vital witness and the inquest could not be concluded until she gave her evidence.