THE TRIAL of a couple charged in connection with the death of a Wexford woman from alleged malnutrition is on hold pending a High Court decision on the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) challenge to an order requiring it to produce documents relating to its care of the woman as a multiple sclerosis (MS) patient up to two years before her death.
Evelyn Joel (59) died in hospital some days after her daughter Eleanor Joel (34) and Eleanor’s partner Jonathon Costen (36) called an ambulance to take her to Wexford General Hospital from their home in Cluain Dara, Enniscorthy, Wexford.
Evelyn Joel was allegedly severely malnourished when she was admitted and she died on January 7th, 2006.
The couple were later charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment of Evelyn Joel.
The trial of Ms Joel and Mr Costen was due to take place in May/June of last year.
However, a dispute arose over an order made by the trial judge, Judge Michael White, on May 27th last directing that certain material which might assist in affording the couple a fair trial should be produced by the HSE.
The material concerned the HSE’s dealings with Evelyn Joel related to her having MS.
The material was provided to an internal HSE inquiry into Evelyn Joel’s death and included notes generated while she was being treated for MS for two years prior to her admission to hospital in January 2006.
In judicial review proceedings which opened yesterday in the High Court, the HSE has asked that Judge White’s order be quashed and has also sought a declaration the order was made in excess of his jurisdiction.
The HSE also claims the judge acted unreasonably and irrationally and erred in law.
The DPP, Mr Costen and Ms Joel are notice parties to the proceedings.
The defendant and the notice parties deny the HSE claims and argue the material is necessary to ensure the couple get a fair trial.
Raymond Comyn SC, for the HSE, said Judge White had not ordered the HSE to produce a draft report of its internal inquiry because, before that report was completed, the gardaí had requested the inquiry be discontinued.
Counsel said the judge had ordered certain materials used in that inquiry be provided, which meant he was ordering that a potentially restricted form of disclosure – known legally as discovery – should be made.
Under discovery, a list of all available documents must be provided and the person seeking them has a right to inspect them, counsel said.
This procedure was also subject to agreement from the provider, because documents may be privileged, or else they must be furnished by order of a court.
The HSE contended Judge White had made a discovery order rather than a (full) disclosure order, counsel said.
“Even though it is called disclosure, it is discovery by another name,” Mr Comyn said.
The hearing continues today in the High Court before Mr Justice John Edwards.