Aberdeen John
J Law Med. 2016 Mar;23(3):595-608.
For three decades, Australian coroners have been moving steadily away from an historical partnership with the criminal law, and have emerged as independent judicial investigators with a dedicated court, and forensic and administrative support structures. Occasionally, however, a situation may arise where the ghosts of coronial law's quasi-criminal past threaten to reappear, to the detriment of the coronial function. One of these situations might develop following an acquittal on a criminal charge which involved the causing of a death. Issues pertaining to a coroner's duty may remain unresolved following criminal proceedings; and the question has to be posed as to whether the result of the previous criminal prosecution restricts or confines, in any way, the scope of permissible findings by a coroner in a later inquest. This article attempts to address this question in the particular context of Queensland law and its historical antecedents--many of which are common to other jurisdictions--in the hope that it might provoke consideration of the underlying practical and theoretical issues to the future benefit of coronial legal theory.
三十年来，澳大利亚的验尸官一直在稳步摆脱与刑法的历史关联，逐渐成为拥有专门法庭以及法医和行政支持体系的独立司法调查人员。然而，偶尔会出现这样的情况：验尸官法律类似刑事的过去的幽灵有再次出现的威胁，从而损害验尸官的职能。其中一种情况可能在涉及导致他人死亡的刑事指控被宣告无罪后出现。刑事诉讼结束后，与验尸官职责相关的问题可能仍未得到解决；于是就必须提出这样一个问题：先前刑事诉讼的结果是否以任何方式限制或约束了验尸官在后续死因调查中可做出的调查结果范围。本文试图在昆士兰法律及其历史渊源（其中许多与其他司法管辖区相同）的特定背景下解决这个问题，希望能引发对潜在实际和理论问题的思考，以利于验尸官法律理论的未来发展。
