TATTOOED ARM CASE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 162, 25 June 1935, Page 9

TATTOOED ARM CASE

INQUEST OUT OF ORDER Supreme Court Decision CORONER MUST VIEW BODY By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright SYDNEY, June 24. A rule sought on behalf of Patrick Brady for prohibition, restraining the Coroner, Mr E. T. Oram, from proceeding with the inquiry into the alleged death of James Smith, was made absolute in the Supreme Court to-day by Mr Justice Haise Rogers. His Honour held that an arm could not be called a body, and as it was necessary that the Coroner should view the body before holding an inquest, the Coroner in this case should not have entered upon the inquiry. The Judge remarked that it was still possible to hold proceedings before a Magistrate. His Honour said, “No body identified as that of James Smith has been found, and it follows that the whole of the body of James Smith has not been viewed by the Coroner, but the arm, in extraordinary circumstances, has been produced to him, and by certain tattoo marks this has been identified as the arm of James Smith. There is evidence that the arm, which was severed from the trunk by a sharp knife, was cut from a dead body, and the Coroner has sworn that ho is satisfied that the James Smith, whoso arm it was, is dead. ’ ’

The judgment, after referring to the opening of the inquest, continues, “The applicant for prohibition, who has been arrested and charged with the murder of James Smith, challenges the legality of the action of the Coroner, and his challenge is based on the ground that no inquest can be held except super visum corporis, and that no corpus has been viewed as a preliminary to the holding of the inquiry.’’ The Judge, after referring to Acts relating to coronial inquiries and dating as far back aS 1 1276, cited passages from Hawkings’s “Pleas of the Crown’’ and the facts of an English ease to show that strictness was required from coroners as to a proper view of the body, and the irrelevancy of the fact that death and identity had been established.

‘“The whole matter,’’ he continued, “reduces itself to the question. ‘ls an arm a body or a corpus,’ or ‘how much of a body may be called a body?’ lam of the opinion that the limb viewed in this case cannot be called a body. Were 1 to hold otherwise, it would follow that each leg was a body and likewise the head. Consequently, it various parts were found lying within the jurisdiction of different coroners, there might be so many separate inquests. I am not concerned to decide whether the trunk without the head or limbs might be called a body or a corpus, but I am constrained to the opinion that any separate member cannot be so termed. “Consequently, I am of the opinion that there was no proper basis for the inquest and the Coroner should not have entered upon the inquiry. “Although this is so, I do not think that the administration of justice will be in any way impeded by this decision. While an inquest cannot be held, there is still open a proceeding before a Magistrate, and there may be a committal and a trial.’’