Freckelton Ian
Barrister, Crockett Chambers, Melbourne, Australia.
J Law Med. 2018 Oct;26(1):7-22.
The hearing rule of procedural fairness applies to coroners' investigations and the findings made by coroners. Decisions by Australian and New Zealand appellate courts starting from the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that this will require interested parties to be accorded the opportunity to respond to any adverse findings, and probably comments, which a coroner is minded to make by being alerted in advance to what is proposed by the coroner. This editorial scrutinises decisions by the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal on the issue between 2016 and 2018 against the backdrop of appellate decisions in South Australia and New Zealand, as well as in the context of the development of modern administrative law in both Australia and New Zealand. It identifies conceptual challenges that exist as a result of the recent case law for coroners' courts, pointing to the uncertainty of what are "adverse" findings and comments for these purposes, a lack of clarity as to who is entitled to procedural fairness in the inquisitorial context of a coronial investigation, the uncertain parameters of reputation for such purposes, vagueness as to what is required for coroners to discharge their obligations, and the logistical difficulties that compliance with such obligations will pose for timeliness of coronial findings.
程序公平的听证规则适用于死因裁判官的调查及死因裁判官作出的调查结果。自20世纪80年代和90年代初以来，澳大利亚和新西兰上诉法院的判决表明，这将要求给予利益相关方回应死因裁判官有意作出的任何不利调查结果以及可能的评论的机会，这可能需要提前告知他们死因裁判官的提议内容。本社论在南澳大利亚和新西兰上诉判决的背景下，以及在澳大利亚和新西兰现代行政法发展的背景下，审视了维多利亚最高法院和上诉法院在2016年至2018年期间关于该问题的判决。它指出了近期判例法给死因裁判法庭带来的概念性挑战，指出在此类情形下“不利”调查结果和评论的不确定性、在死因裁判调查的审问式背景下谁有权获得程序公平缺乏明确性、为此目的声誉的不确定范围、死因裁判官履行其义务所需条件的模糊性，以及遵守此类义务对死因裁判结果及时性造成的后勤困难。
