The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by the Dublin City Coroner against a decision that he may not investigate whether the Pertussis vaccine may have played a role in a death.
The five-judge court yesterday unanimously rejected the appeal, although Mr Justice Hardiman said he was doing so because Section 26 of the Coroners Act 1962 precluded the coroner from calling evidence from more than two medical witnesses.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the function of an inquest consisted of an inquiry into the deceased's identity and where, when and how the death occurred.
If an inquest were to extend its inquiries beyond those circumstances, it would become an inquiry "of a radically different nature" - which was not envisaged by the Oireachtas in enacting the 1962 Act. Dr Brian Farrell had appealed against a High Court decision upholding a challenge by the NAHB to his decision to investigate any role the vaccine may have played in the death in 1995 of Mr Alan Duffy (22), of Clontarf.
Mr Duffy died after contracting pneumonia. He had received the vaccine between October 1973 and February 1974. The consultant who treated him had proposed to state on the death certificate that death was due to aspirational pneumonia due to cerebral palsy. Mr Duffy's family argued the aspirational pneumonia was due to Alan's mental handicap, which in turn, was caused by an encephalopathic reaction to the vaccine.
In 1999, the High Court ruled any link between Mr Duffy's death and the vaccine was too nebulous to make it appropriate for investigation by a coroner.
Upholding that decision, the Chief Justice said the case ultimately depended on construction of the expression "how the death occurred" as set out in Section 30 of the 1962 Act and, specifically, whether it authorised the wide-ranging inquiry on which the coroner embarked.
Mr Justice Murphy, Mr Justice Murray and Ms Justice McGuinness agreed.
