Widow loses coroner cannabis challenge

A widowed mother of six has lost her High Court challenge to a coroner’s finding that cannabis smoking contributed to the death…

A widowed mother of six has lost her High Court challenge to a coroner’s finding that cannabis smoking contributed to the death of her young husband from a heart attack.

Fiona Byrne, wife of the late Paul Byrne (37), had claimed Dublin County Coroner, Dr Kieran Geraghty, was “perverse” in finding her husband’s death on November 9th 2005 was by misadventure due to coronary issues with cannabis use as a secondary cause.

Her husband was not a chronic user of cannabis but smoked it in an attempt to alleviate the constant pain he was suffering from, Ms Byrne claimed.

Ms Byrne, Glenshane Grove, Tallaght, Dublin, claimed Dr Geraghty failed to consider several matters, including research rejecting links between smoking cannabis and heart attacks.

READ MORE

Dr Geraghty denied the claims and said the “opinion” about cannabis use was not put before him at the inquest and he did not have an opportunity to consider it when making his decision.

He also argued Ms Byrne failed to put before the court sufficient evidence to say that his decision as to cannabis being a secondary cause of death was at variance with reason and common sense.

Dismissing Ms Byrne’s case today, Mr Justice John Hedigan found the coroner arrived at his decision on the basis of reliable and detailed evidence and had acted in the interests of Ms Byrne at all times.

He rejected Ms Byrne’s arguments the coroner did not seek further evidence or was ambivalent about the role of cannabis as a precipitant to a heart attack.

“It would be unreasonable to expect all contrary views to be accounted for in a coroner’s inquest”, he said.

The question of whether further information should be required or explored was within the discretion of the coroner, the judge said.

The coroner had a detailed report, based on first-hand examination by the pathologist and supported with toxicology results, along with other material, which allowed him to make an informed and reasonable decision, he added.

A coroner must be satisfied a misadventure verdict was based on the balance of probabilities and such a verdict, although broad in scope, suggested the cause of death in this case arose as an “unintended consequence of an otherwise innocuous activity”, the judge said.

That was not an unreasonable decision given the preceding state of affairs, he added.

The judge also rejected Ms Byrne’s claim the inquest should have been adjourned to facilitate an investigation into why there was a 40-minute delay in an ambulance arriving at her home on the day of her husband’s death.

The judge said Ms Byrne attended the inquest with her father-in-law and was present when her father-in-law had refused an adjournment.

An inquest is merely an inquisitorial process and must not encroach on establishing criminal or civil liability, the judge said.

In her action, Ms Byrne said the coroner failed to properly take into account Mr Byrne’s medical history, including his being treated for high cholesterol and waiting for about a month for an “urgent” appointment for an MRI scan following the discovery of a blood clot in his leg.

She challenged Dr Geraghty’s finding, based on a pathologist’s report, that traces of cannabis found in Mr Byrne’s system were sufficient to have induced and/or contributed to the onset of the heart attack.