CORONERS' POSTS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23320, 13 April 1939, Page 15

CORONERS' POSTS

'abolition advocated "USELESS EXORESCENCE" OPINIONS OF MAGISTRATE UNNECESSARY INQUESTS "It is impossible to say how many unnecessary inquests are held annually in New Zealand. In my opinion the primary functions of a coroner have been superseded by the ordinary functions of the police," writes Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., in the April number of the New Zealand Law Journal, in which he advocates the abolition of the office of coroner. He describes the office as " a useless excrescence ever since the police force was established on a national basis and the power of the coroner to commit for trial a person found on inquisition to be criminally responsible for another's death was taken away."

"Coroner's proceedings as at present conducted may, and in fact do, interfere with the proper administration of criminal, civil and natural justice," continues Mr. Luxford. He does not suggest that a judicial inquiry should not be held to ascertain the manner of death or the cause or origin of fire in certain cases. There was, however, a more effective and less expensive way of carrying out so much of the coroner's functions as still remained necessary in the public,interest.

Opposition to Change Old-time legal customs and practices were deeply cherished long after their usefulness had ceased, and whenever abolition or radical change was suggested protestations were heard from Bench, bar and even the general public. The suggested abolition of another anachronism, the grand jury, was a recent illustration of that. "Many coroners take the view," says Mr. Luxford, "and in my opinion correctly, that if a medical certificate is not forthcoming they are bound to hold an inquest. The result is that in practically every case of sudden death where there are no suspicious circumstances a verdict is returned in accordance with the medical evidence, which, of course, is based on a post-mortem examination. A post-mortem examination cannot be ordered in New Zealand until the inquest has formally been opened." Mr. Luxford states that the position is different in England. There a coroner mav order a post-mortem examination witliout opening an inquest, and dispense with the inquest if the result discloses a natural cause of death. No fewer than 9467 inquests were dispensed with in 1933 under this special power conferred on coroners. Tarce of Viewing Body

Coroners here, he points out, do not take steps to gather information relating to a death or a fire. That is done by the police, and they alone are qualified to do it. Yet when a coroner decides to hold an inquest touching tho death of a person he must go through the farce of viewing the body in order to give himself jurisdiction to open the inquiry. . . The writer contends that the administrative functions of a coroner should be carried out by a senior police officer in each district. That to all intents and purposes was the position at present. except for the formal signature of the coroner. Hjs main proposal is that the necessity to view the body be abolished and the Magistrate's Court be given jurisdiction to hold an inquest on the application of either a senior police officer or an interested person. "The immediate effectj" he says, "would be the elimination of 64 lay district coroners who are paid a fixed fee for each inquest they hold and the saving of the heavy bill for travelling expenses paid annually to district coroners and stipendiary magistrates merely because they are' required to view the body."