R v Doogan

(2005) 193 FLR 239; [2005] ACTSC 74

Supreme Court of the ACT

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Tribunals
2. › Coronial inquiry
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Application for prohibition
5. › Whether conduct of coroner and counsel assisting gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias
6. › Whether cumulative effect of matters established apprehended bias
7. › Significance of jurisdictional limits and hybrid nature of inquiry
8. › Coroners Act 1997 (ACT), ss 18(1), 52, 53, 54, 55, 58
1. Administrative Law
2. › Natural justice
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Test for apprehended bias
5. › Fair-minded lay observer test
6. › Application to coronial proceedings
7. › Whether odd intemperate remark by judicial officer provides ground for apprehended bias
1. Courts and Tribunals
2. › Coronial inquiry
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Scope of inquiry into cause and origin of fire
5. › Whether jurisdiction extends beyond cause and origin to circumstances of fire
6. › Common sense test of causation applied to determine jurisdictional limits
7. › Coroners Act 1997 (ACT), s 18(1)
1. Courts and Tribunals
2. › Coronial inquiry
3. › Counsel assisting
4. › Role and duties of counsel assisting coroner
5. › Whether counsel assisting may actively pursue truth and test evidence
6. › Whether conduct of counsel assisting can give rise to apprehension of bias on part of coroner

Quick Take

The jurisdiction of a coroner under s 18(1) of the Coroners Act 1997 (ACT) to inquire into the 'cause and origin' of a fire is limited by the common sense test of causation and does not extend to wide-ranging inquiries into government policy or agency performance akin to a Royal Commission. The term 'the fire' means the fire that caused the damage rather than merely the initial ignition. In assessing apprehended bias in coronial proceedings, the significance of alleged grounds must be assessed by reference to the questions the coroner is required to decide, and where no findings have yet been made, applications may be premature. An intemperate remark by a judicial officer does not of itself provide a ground for apprehended bias. Conduct of counsel assisting a coroner does not automatically give rise to apprehended bias on the part of the coroner.