The siblings of a landlord brutally killed by his tenant have launched a High Court challenge over a coroner’s refusal to conduct an “enhanced” inquest into his death.
Thomas O’Gorman was killed between January 11th and January 12th, 2014, at his home in Beech Park Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin 15.
His tenant Saverio Bellante (40) had in 2015 admitted killing Mr O’Gorman and eating his body parts.
A jury at the Central Criminal Court found Bellante not guilty of murder by reason of insanity and placed him in the care of the Central Mental Hospital, where he remains.
The High Court on Monday heard the coroner for the district of Dublin is due in late September to resume an inquest into Mr O’Gorman’s death.
The inquest was adjourned from time to time to allow the trial proceed and for the submission of various documents.
Ciaran Craven SC, for Paul and Catherine O’Gorman, siblings of the deceased, said they wanted the coroner to conduct an inquest that is compliant with article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
This could be best described as “an enhanced inquest” to address their concerns about the circumstances of their brother’s death, counsel said.
His clients considered Bellante’s trial was insufficient for the purpose of a proper investigation into the killing, he said.
The family were concerned about evidence from the trial that Bellante’s actions may have been attributable to the manner in which his schizophrenic illness was managed by the Health Service Executive and by his treating consultant psychiatrist.
Psychotic episode
The family also believed there were systemic failures in relation to Bellante’s treatment.
Bellante’s medical treatment changed before he had an acute psychotic episode which caused him to kill Mr O’Gorman, it is claimed.
There has been no investigation by any regulator into the circumstances giving rise to or surrounding the death and no inquiry as to how Bellante was treated by the HSE has taken place, counsel said.
The family sought an enhanced inquest which was refused last May by the coroner and they contend that refusal amounted to error by the coroner, he said.
The coroner, when considering the application, made findings of fact without any evidence and failed to take relevant considerations into account, counsel submitted.
In their action, the siblings want an order quashing the coroner’s decision of May 2nd last not to conduct an inquest that complies with article 2 of the ECHR and directing the coroner to conduct such an inquest.
They claim the refusal was unreasonable and irrational, void and of no effect.
Permission to bring the proceedings was granted on an ex-parte basis by Mr Justice Seamus Noonan on Monday.
The judge put a stay on the inquest pending the outcome of the action and returned the matter to November.