A widow will not have to attend an inquest today into her husband's death after the Supreme Court pointed to deficiencies in the Coroners Act 1962 regarding powers to compel persons to attend.
The court described as "remarkable" the failure of the legislature to remedy those deficiencies, identified by the courts since 1993.
Gerard Lee (31) was shot dead at a birthday party in his honour in Coolock, Dublin on March 9th, 1996.
Yesterday the Supreme Court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, further extended a stay on a High Court order compelling his widow, Ms Lynda Lee, of Seabury Park, Malahide, to attend today's inquest into his death.
The stay applies to allow the Attorney General to decide whether he will grant Ms Lee legal aid.
The three Supreme Court judges and counsel for the AG agreed there were problems in the Coroners Act 1962 which have not been corrected by the legislature, despite being pointed out by the courts on two occasions.
The Chief Justice said it was not possible for the Supreme Court to say at this point that Ms Lee had not got an arguable case regarding her challenge to the High Court order.
He suggested lawyers for the AG take instructions on whether the AG would fund a legal team for Ms Lee. Pending that, the court would adjourn the matter and continue the stay.
If the AG was prepared to fund the case, the stay would continue until the action was heard, the Chief Justice added.
He pointed out that there was nothing to stop the coroner proceeding with the inquest in the interim, although the coroner's view was that Ms Lee was an essential witness.
Mr Justice Murphy said the problems arising for the coroner had been to some extent created by "sins of omission" of the Oireachtas.
Last Monday the Attorney General obtained an order from the High Court compelling Ms Lee to attend the inquest today. On Tuesday Ms Lee won a Supreme Court stay on the High Court order, applicable until yesterday.
Ms Lee argued that the Coroners Act of 1962 provided for a fine of £5 if a person failed to comply with a summons from the coroner to attend an inquest.
The Act contained no power entitling the Attorney General to seek an order compelling her to attend, she said.
Mr O'Callaghan, for the AG, argued that the AG was entitled to compel attendance and to compel witnesses to give evidence.
Mr Justice Barron said he was concerned that Ms Lee was described as an "essential" witness, which appeared to indicate some pre-judgment of issues.
He pointed out that even if Ms Lee did attend the inquest but refused to give evidence, there was no sanction against her.
The Chief Justice described the Coroners Act as "defective" and said it was remarkable that no action had been taken by the legislature.
