The ACT Legislative Assembly (as distinct from the ACT Govenrment) has served the commnity poorly on the subject of disabilitiy services. That was demonstrated this week by the childish spat by ACT coroner Michael Somes against the ead of the disability inquiry, former Supreme Court justice John Gallop.
Mr Somes is conducting a coronial inquiry into the deaths of three intellectually handicapped people. Mr Somes, mounted high on his horse, refused a request to release hospital records obtained for him by the police to ACT Community Care to use them at the inquiry being headed by Mr Gallop. Mr Somes said, “”The coronial inquiry must take precedence of any other inquiry.”
He was not prepared to give up the documents and they would remain with the Coroner’s Court until he had finished with them.
Oh dear, here we are in the 21 century and our 19th century courts have apparently not heard of the very useful 20th century invention called the photocopier.
Counsel assisting the coroner, Richard Refshauge, SC, raised the question of whether Mr Gallop’s inquiry might be in contempt of Mr Somes coronial inquest.
Oh dear, how precious can the courts be? A coronial inquest is an inquest into how, when, where, and by whom a person died. It is an inquiry into the death of the dead. It is not a inquest into the blameworthiness of the living. How can any other inquiry or public commentary in general be in contempt of a coronial inquest? If there is a criminal case being tried by a jury, it would be a different matter. People’s rights would be at stake. But in a coronial inquest, the evidence given is not admissible in a criminal trial. The coroner’s task is to allay public concern about a death. He does this by making a finding about the cause of death. He might also make recommendations to prevent thses sorts of deaths in the future. He might commit someone for trial, but the cornoner’s court is not one that finds guilt or innocence or punishes.
On the other hand, Mr Gallop’s inquiry is about whether there are systemic failures in the provison of care to peoel with disability in the ACT. He is not seeking to determine how any individuals died or who was responsible for them. He is seeking to find out whether the processes and system of management a deficient.
In many respects both these inquiries are executive rather than judicial functions. They should be able to be conducted concurrently. They should be able to share evidence, if necessary. Their territory necessarily overlaps, but there is no need for territorial brawls about which evidence should be available to each inquiry.
Because these inquiries are being conducted in by judicial or former judicial officers, it is easy to misunderstand their role. Mr Somes has a statutory and common law role which he can pursue irrespective of Mr Gallop’s inquiry.
That said, it would have been far better not to have had these concurrent inquiries being conducted in the atmosphere of the courtroom. It was not possible to prevent them being concurrent because both a coroner’s and a systemic inquiry were needed. The latter, however, should have been done by an Assembly committee. That it was not is an admission that the relevant Assembly members were not prepared to put in the work or were not intellectually up to it. Sad.
Fundamentally, though, it seems that if people with disability are to be made part of the community and to avoid institutionalisation, the community through its government is going to have to provide enough money to allow that to happen without risking, or indeed taking, people’s lives.