The Law Commission has taken an eminently sensible approach to the problems that face the office of coroner. It has also pulled no punches in addressing those issues that have turned the system into a "haphazard" regime. The observations and recommendations of the commission will come as little surprise to the coroners themselves. They have had real concerns about the structure and operation of the system under which they operate.
Their concerns were expressed to the commission after it released a preliminary paper. That review also solicited numerous submissions from the public and not least from the Maori community, to the cultural needs and values of whom the office has shown "little or no regard."
It is clear from the commission's report that the problems do not arise out of inherent failings in the concept of a service that is part of the judicial process and possessing many of the powers of a district court judge, yet is held separate from the courts. This separation demonstrates the coroner's function in establishing fact - the cause of death - rather than apportioning blame.
It is also appropriate given the role that has emerged in recent years of identifying factors where further deaths may be prevented and ensuring that this information is passed to the appropriate organisation.
Rather, the problems arise because there is no central organisation, poor support and insufficient recognition of the coroner's role. Worse, there is obvious inconsistency in the approach taken in coronial hearings in different parts of the country.
Any part of the judicial system should have basic elements of certainty and commonality within its organisation. Yet the coroners lack any central recording system that provides an overview of the work of each office. Nor is anyone charged with monitoring the work of the coroners.
The Law Commission has suggested to the Minister of Justice a solution to that problem which Phil Goff should have no difficulty in implementing: it has suggested the appointment of a chief coroner. Indeed, the Minister of Justice might wonder why it has taken a review by such an august body as the Law Commission to come up with a suggestion that common sense says should have been in place years ago.
The commission extends its commonsense approach by recommending the appointment of a coordinator to liaise with each coroner to establish a relationship with local iwi, and by calling for the appointment of more Maori coroners, who would help to overcome problems of cultural sensitivity.
Much of the review has dealt with procedural issues and constructive recommendations that, if adopted, will result in a service that is better-organised and more appreciated. Its most valuable advice, however, may be in the area of developing centralised information systems that will allow coroners to play a significant role in the early identification of new and emerging hazards and in providing something of a barometer of the health of our society.
The latter is an interesting aspect of the coroner's function and one which the Coroners Act as now drafted does not always promote. Suicide, particularly youth suicide, is a measure of social "health," yet the law states that, without the coroner's authority, only the identification of the deceased and a finding of self-inflicted death may be made public. Details of the death can - and usually are - suppressed under what has become a presumption of non-disclosure.
News media have long argued that prohibiting publication has inhibited valid discussion of a phenomenon that should concern society as a whole. Suppression has certainly not prevented a growing toll of young lives lost. The commission has recommended the drawing up of "guidelines" on what coroners might make public. It should have gone further and reversed the presumption to one of disclosure, except where the withholding of certain information - such as a readily available but potentially deadly chemical - is in the public interest.
<i>Editorial:</i> Coroners deserve this better deal
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.