The widow of a man who was shot dead four years ago has won her appeal against an order directing her to attend the inquest into his death.
Earlier this year the High Court granted an injunction to the Attorney General requiring Ms Linda Lee, Seabury Park, Malahide, Co Dublin, to comply with provisions of the Coroner's Act 1962 and attend the adjourned hearing of the inquest into the death of Gerard Lee (31) at his birthday party in Coolock in March 1996.
In September 1999, following a number of adjournments, the Chief State Solicitor wrote to Ms Lee warning her that should she fail to attend, the Attorney General intended to issue High Court proceedings seeking to compel her to do so.
A further summons was served on her but when the inquest resumed on October 26th, 1999, she was again absent. The High Court had directed Ms Lee to attend the inquest but she appealed that decision to the Supreme Court which yesterday unanimously allowed the appeal.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said he would have no difficulty in accepting that until the law was reformed so as to provide for adequate sanctions in a case where an essential witness refused to attend an inquest, the court should make use of its residual jurisdiction to ensure that the law was observed.
The High Court had granted an order directing Ms Lee to attend. However, although the order was an interlocutory injunction (an interlocutory order is one which applied pending the hearing of a full legal action between parties), it was obvious that if upheld it would dispose of the proceedings.
Accordingly, it was not logical to resolve the issue as to whether the injunction should have been granted by reference to the usual test for the granting of interlocutory order - whether there was a fair question to be tried.
If it should emerge at a plenary hearing of the proceedings that Ms Lee was entitled to succeed, it was difficult to see how justice could be done to her in circumstances where the interlocutory order would have effectively disposed of the entire case.
The Chief Justice said that was a relevant consideration. While it had been said it had not been possible for the inquest to be concluded because of the inability of the coroner to obtain Ms Lee's attendance, no reason was given for "that somewhat bald assertion".
The coroner in a letter to the Chief State Solicitor referred to Ms Lee as "an essential witness". However, no indication was given in an affidavit or the letter why her evidence was essential. How, where and when Mr Lee died were the only matters, other than his identity, which were within the remit of the inquest.
In his letter, the coroner said Mr Lee's family were "adamant they wished to hear Ms Lee give evidence viva voce at the inquest". The Chief Justice said coroners would want to have regard so far as possible to anything a family had to say.
However, it was for the coroner alone to determine if a witness's attendance was necessary.
He was satisfied it had not been demonstrated so far that this was an exceptional case which required the courts to exercise their residual jurisdiction to secure compliance with the law.