A DIRECTIVE from the Attorney General that a fresh inquest be held into the death of a man in 1992 was quashed by the High Court yesterday.
The directive for a new inquest into the death of Thomas Doherty (54), of Kilcross, Sandyford Co Dublin, on July 1st, 1992, was challenged by the Dublin City Coroner, Dr Brian Farrell.
Mr Justice Smyth, in a reserved judgment, said section 24(1) of the Coroner's Act, 1962 did not give the AG authority to direct a coroner to hold an inquest on a person into whose death an inquest had been held already so long as the verdict remained unimpeached by the legal process.
The verdict of the inquest bury stood, it had not been quashed nor had proceedings been taken to do so.
Mr Doherty died suddenly while undergoing a routine operation at St Vincent's Hospital Dublin. An inquest was held in December 1992.
Mr Justice Smyth said his widow, Anne, had given evidence that her late husband had been allergic to penicillin.
As there was some disagreement between medical witnesses as to the possible or probable cause of death being related to the administration of a trial dose of antibiotic during the operation, the coroner very properly gave Mrs Doherty an opportunity to give evidence regarding the history of her husband's allergy to penicillin. Her solicitor cross examined the witnesses at the inquest.
Mr Justice Smyth said that in summing up to the jury, Dr Farrell drew attention to the medical evidence, the disagreement by the medical witnesses and, in particular, Mrs Doherty's evidence.
The jury's verdict was that Mr Doherty died from "acute cardiac failure and pulmonary oedema and that this was due to an episode of hypertension, possibly due to an anaphylactic reaction to Augmentin, combined with severe coronary arterial disease and hypersensitive cardiac disease".
Mrs Doherty had wanted the word "possibly" to be deleted from the verdict.
Eighteen months later, Dr Farrell wrote that the verdict reflected the evidence given at the inquest. He was replying to the AG, who wrote that concern had arisen "from the fact that evidence relating to hospital records of the deceased's allergy to penicillin which would appear not to have been taken into account before the deceased was administered a test dose (penicillin) during pre operation procedures during which he suddenly died was not disclosed to the jury".
Mr Justice Smyth said it was clear from correspondence as of July 20th, 1994, that the AG as then advised did not consider a further inquest was necessary.
By September 1994, it was clear that Mrs Doherty was interesting herself with inquests elsewhere in the State and contemplating joining with other families in making a demand on the Minister for Justice. Mrs Doherty had canvassed the support of some politicians, who were also writing to the AGE on the matter.
The judge said notwithstanding that there was no change of circumstances between July 20th to 29th, 1994, and December 2nd, 1994, the AG decided that a new, fresh or further inquest should be held.