In a rare instance of judicial scrutiny over a coronial inquiry, the High Court’s decision in Muhammad v Te Kōti Kaitirotiro Matewhawhati ki te Ōtautahi underscores the significant discretion coroners hold in the pursuit of answers - and how this can differ from conventional court processes.^[1]

What is a coronial inquiry?

A coronial inquiry is a formal investigation, conducted by a coroner, to determine the cause and circumstances of a death. If the coroner decides they need to hear from witnesses in person, they will hold a hearing in court - called an inquest.

Unlike civil or criminal trials, coronial inquiries are inquisitorial in nature: they are fact-finding processes. While the Coroner can make adverse comments, they do not assign liability.

However, coronial inquiries remain courts of law - with witnesses, oral and written evidence, cross-examination, legal submissions, and binding procedural orders. The coroner’s role is to establish:

1. The cause of a person’s death and the circumstances that lead to their death so far as possible;
2. Identify systemic issues that lead to the death; and
3. Make recommendations aimed at preventing future, similar, deaths.

In recent years, New Zealand has seen several major coronial inquiries, including those into the 2020 Auckland and Hawke’s Bay severe weather events, the 2019 Whakaari/White Island eruption, and the Christchurch Mosque terror attacks.

Testing the Coroner’s powers

Muhammad v Te Kōti Kaitirotiro Matewhawhati ki te Ōtautahi was an unsuccessful judicial review brought by Tariq Muhammed, an interested party in the Christchurch Masjidain Attack Inquiry.

The review sought to challenge the Coroner’s decision to hear evidence from the terrorist. The Coroner’s decision to allow him to be examined - and cross-examined - was met with strong opposition from victims’ families and interested parties.

The challenge to the Coroner’s decision was brought on three grounds:

1. The Coroner failed to have regard to relevant considerations, being countervailing public interest considerations.
2. The Coroner erred in law in considering their power to call evidence.
3. The Coroner’s decision was otherwise so irrational and unreasonable as to be unlawful.

In rejecting all three grounds, Justice Eaton, in the High Court, reaffirmed the breadth of the Coroner’s discretion as to the evidence to be heard at an inquiry, and the conduct of inquiries more generally. In the decision, the Coroner’s Act 2006 is described as a “‘fairly blank canvas with broad expectations’ commensurate with the imperative that an inquiry, as an investigate process and truth-seeking exercise, ought not be limited to matters of mere formality”.

An important reminder

This case is a reminder of the distinct nature of the coronial jurisdiction. Coroners are empowered to pursue any line of inquiry they believe will help establish the facts, identify systemic issues, and make meaningful recommendations. Connected to this, the usual rules around evidence do not apply in the coronial jurisdiction. A coroner may admit any evidence they think fit, whether or not it would be admissible in other courts.^[2]

Having acted in multiple coronial inquiries, we have seen first-hand how varied these processes can be - often operating outside the familiar boundaries of courtroom procedure. While many elements of a coronial inquiry might be familiar to civil practitioners, and organisations that have been involved in litigation primarily, they require a bespoke approach and strategy.

Muhammad v Te Kōti Kaitirotiro Matewhawhati ki te Ōtautahi is also a reminder of the ever-present human dimension in coronial inquiries. Behind every inquiry is a life lost, and a family and community seeking answers. For witnesses, the experience can be challenging - their role is not to defend or persuade, but to assist the coroner in identifying the facts and issues. This is an important dimension for those involved to navigate, particularly recognising the sensitivities involved.

Get in touch

If you or your organisation are involved in a coronial matter, or wish to understand more about the process, we welcome the opportunity to share our experience and support you through it.

Special thanks to Alice Mander for her assistance in writing this article.