The inquest into the death of Brian Murphy, the student who died after a violent fracas outside Club Anabel in Dublin in 2000, is likely to resume later this year. It was adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal trials in connection with his death.
While inquests are not necessarily resumed when a criminal trial has been completed, as the cause of death is usually dealt with then, they can be, especially if the family request it or if the coroner believes there are particular grounds for doing so. The decision is at the discretion of the coroner.
It is not automatic that the pathologists involved in examining the body or preparing the postmortem report attend the inquest. Where the coroner is him or herself a pathologist, he or she can deal with this evidence directly from depositions.
However, it is not uncommon for the coroner to ask the pathologist to attend to give evidence. It would then be possible for the legal representatives of the family to question the pathologist about this evidence.
Meanwhile, a legal expert has said that appeals could be brought against manslaughter convictions in the light of the illness of the former State pathologist, Prof John Harbison. However, they would not necessarily succeed, he said.
Tom O'Malley, barrister and lecturer in law in NUI Galway, told The Irish Times that the Government could not reassure anybody that no cases would be brought, as this would be a matter for appellants and their lawyers.
The issue was only likely to arise in cases already tried, as Dr Marie Cassidy has been the State Pathologist and the person giving evidence in all recent trials, he said. Prof Harbison's cases have, in the main, already gone through the system.
The number of cases was probably small where the issue of the cause of death was so crucial that it could cause the whole case to unravel, he said.
Usually the issues in a manslaughter case were the reasons for the violent act, and whether self-defence or provocation were involved, he said. In most manslaughter cases there was little or no doubt that the death was the result of some specific action.
Mr O'Malley pointed out that under the 1993 Criminal Evidence Act, an appeal could be brought where there was a newly-discovered fact, even if there had already been an appeal. This could include a fact whose significance was not appreciated at the time.
However, the possibility that Prof Harbison's health may have been deteriorating at the time would not be sufficient as a "newly-discovered fact". It would be necessary to show that there was something wrong with his evidence at the time.