Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #38

[papertrail]

The 2003 inquest followed a separate 2001 inquest in which coroner Jan Stevenson also determined a “known person”, Mr Dawson, had killed Lyn.
Nocookies The Australian - Aug 17, 2018

Two separate inquests previously recommended to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that a "known person", now identified as Chris Dawson, be charged with her murder.
Teacher's Pet: The Search For Lyn Dawson | ten daily

The coroner did not conclude with naming the POI at the time. A coroner once they come to an opinion the perpetrator is known will put an inquiry into hiatus and refer the matter to the DPP.

A coroner's job is to determine if a death has occurred and in many cases the determination is regarding a missing person. Once that conclusion reaches the point where it is known a death has occurred the matter is immediately referred to DPP.

A coroner cannot conclude an inquiry with the action of actually naming a person they believe is responsible for a death.

 

[papertrail]

I think that’s incorrect , look at the Dawson case

I know about the Dawson case already. There is a great difference with regard to naming a known person and coming to a decision a known person is responsible. A coroner cannot conclude an inquiry by naming a person.

 

[SouthAussie]

I know about the Dawson case already. There is a great difference with regard to naming a known person and coming to a decision a known person is responsible. A coroner cannot conclude an inquiry by naming a person.

I think that statement is splitting hairs.

When a Coroner makes a decision that a known person has killed a victim, all you have to do is read the inquest report to see who that known person is.

As well, I am pretty sure that the Coroner informs the police exactly who that known person is.

Personally, I do not see the point in splitting hairs. I think most of us want the same outcome for William. To find out what has happened to him, and to have the perpetrator(s) charged and face the courts.

Two separate inquests previously recommended to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that a "known person", now identified as Chris Dawson, be charged with her murder.
Teacher's Pet: The Search For Lyn Dawson | ten daily

 

[purpleandgreen]

I think that statement is splitting hairs.

When a Coroner makes a decision that a known person has killed a victim, all you have to do is read the inquest report to see who that known person is.

As well, I am pretty sure that the Coroner informs the police exactly who that known person is.

Personally, I do not see the point in splitting hairs. I think most of us want the same outcome for William. To find out what has happened to him, and to have the perpetrator(s) charged and face the courts.

Two separate inquests previously recommended to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that a "known person", now identified as Chris Dawson, be charged with her murder.
Teacher's Pet: The Search For Lyn Dawson | ten daily

Yes SA, the last thing we want is for child abductors and child abusers to be protected, not only in William’s case, but all cases, past, present and future. IMO. No matter who they are.

 

[Sillybilly]

I know about the Dawson case already. There is a great difference with regard to naming a known person and coming to a decision a known person is responsible. A coroner cannot conclude an inquiry by naming a person.

How does this statement jive with (4)b of the New South Wales Consolidated Acts: CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 78 Procedure at inquest or inquiry involving indictable offence

(4) The coroner is required to forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions

a) the depositions taken at an inquest or inquiry to which this section applies, and

b) in the case of an inquest or inquiry referred to in subsection (1) (b)--a written statement signed by the coroner that specifies the name of the known person and the particulars of the indictable offence concerned.

<bbm>

 

[papertrail]

How does this statement jive with (4)b of the New South Wales Consolidated Acts: CORONERS ACT 2009 - SECT 78 Procedure at inquest or inquiry involving indictable offence

(4) The coroner is required to forward to the Director of Public Prosecutions

a) the depositions taken at an inquest or inquiry to which this section applies, and

b) in the case of an inquest or inquiry referred to in subsection (1) (b)--a written statement signed by the coroner that specifies the name of the known person and the particulars of the indictable offence concerned.

<bbm>

That is only relevant when there is a body recovered and a known person is responsible. It is a very fine and definite line that a coroner is not permitted to cross and that is naming a known person and asserting that person had committed a murder. The only person that can do that is a Judge or Jury after a trial has completed etc etc etc.

 

[BreakingNews]

No body in Dawson case. <modsnip>Let's all move back to William and will be interested to hear that inquest's decision, outcome, or whatever else you want to call it.

 

[BreakingNews]

That is only relevant when there is a body recovered and a known person is responsible. It is a very fine and definite line that a coroner is not permitted to cross and that is naming a known person and asserting that person had committed a murder. The only person that can do that is a Judge or Jury after a trial has completed etc etc etc.

<modsnip: rude> What do you think Coroner did in the Dawson case. Say " I think someone murdered Lynette but I am not allowed to say, but you police go back and find out for yourselves". So why hold an inquest???

 

[papertrail]

<modsnip: rude> What do you think Coroner did in the Dawson case. Say " I think someone murdered Lynette but I am not allowed to say, but you police go back and find out for yourselves". So why hold an inquest???

<modsnip> It might helo clear things up if you refer to sections 82 of the Coroners Act 2009 that is NSW act. Sect 3.

'' ...the record must not indicate or in any way suggest that an offence has been committed by any person''.

The full Act must be read to fully take in what is permitted.

I am correct.

 

[drsleuth]

<modsnip> It might helo clear things up if you refer to sections 82 of the Coroners Act 2009 that is NSW act. Sect 3.

'' ...the record must not indicate or in any way suggest that an offence has been committed by any person''.

The full Act must be read to fully take in what is permitted.

I am correct.

I don't think the Dawson inquests were under the 2009 coroners act anyway? Wasn't the two inquests in 2001 & 2003.............

https://www.smh.com.au/national/cor...over-wifes-disappearance-20030228-gdgcke.html

Coroner recommends murder charges over wife's disappearance

 

[JLZ]

I think there's a distinction to be made between what the coroner is able to say in the coroner's report and by way of a verdict, and what the coroner provides in a separate statement to the DPP. Normally we wouldn't know, or would have to speculate, about the latter, but in the Dawson case because the situation has become a scandal and the DPP has commented, we do know.

 

[SouthAussie]

I think there's a distinction to be made between what the coroner is able to say in the coroner's report and by way of a verdict, and what the coroner provides in a separate statement to the DPP. Normally we wouldn't know, or would have to speculate, about the latter, but in the Dawson case because the situation has become a scandal and the DPP has commented, we do know.

While what you are saying is technically true, the speculation is very narrow. As narrow as being easily able to pin it down to one perpetrator who is named throughout the proceedings. Counsel assisting the Coroner can make it very clear who they think is responsible for a murder.

For example, when reading the Lyn Dawson inquest report (Friday 28 February 2003), it is blatantly clear who the known person is. He (Chris Dawson) is named and discussed numerous times.

https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/2003inquestday5-compressed.pdf

And that is why I feel that it is splitting hairs. The exact same thing may happen in William's inquest. One person may be named and referred to over and over and over by the counsel assisting the Coroner, then the Coroner could make a finding that William is deceased and a recommendation is being put forth to the DPP for the charging of a known person with the crime. It won't take a genius to work out who the known person is.

 

[BreakingNews]

<modsnip> It might helo clear things up if you refer to sections 82 of the Coroners Act 2009 that is NSW act. Sect 3.

'' ...the record must not indicate or in any way suggest that an offence has been committed by any person''.

The full Act must be read to fully take in what is permitted.

I am correct.

I think you will find that Coroners have a job to do, and that is to determine what has occurred. They can use whatever means the think necessary

 

[Karinna]

This is from a NSW Govt. website so i would imagine this is true & correct information and determines what a Coroner's role is.
(quote)
What do Coroners do?
Coroners investigate certain kinds of deaths and suspected deaths to seek to answer the following key
questions:
4
•
Has a person died? If so:
–
Can that person be identified?
–
When and where did he or she die?
–
The manner of death, that is, the way a person dies, including the surrounding circumstances.
For example in a coronial investigation possible manner of death findings include natural causes,
misadventure, suicide (self-inflicted death), homicide, or an open verdict (undetermined).
–
What was the direct cause of death? That is, the immediate physical (medical) cause of death.
Coroners try to find out what happened and seek to determine the facts surrounding a death or suspected
death. Coroners
do not
lay blame, find people guilty of criminal offences, or determine civil liability.
Coronial investigations may result in the holding of a public hearing (an inquest). If warranted, following an
inquest, a Coroner may make recommendations to government and other agencies with a view to preventing
future fatalities and improving public health and safety.
Further information is provided in
The Inquest
section of this guide (see page 17).
http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov...or families and friends of missing people.pdf

 

[BreakingNews]

The Coroner's role

Clearly states the role of the coroner. Cause and manner of death. Nothing about what they can't say

 

[Karinna]

The Coroner's role

Clearly states the role of the coroner. Cause and manner of death. Nothing about what they can't say

BBM, Not to what they can say, but definitely in what they can do and their specific role in that.

 

[SouthAussie]

The Coroner's role

Clearly states the role of the coroner. Cause and manner of death. Nothing about what they can't say

In support of your statement, the Attorney General for NSW says this .....


BBM
"I think the basic function of coronial inquiries is to reassure the public that murders and arsons are not going undetected.

It is often difficult in a particular case to establish and define the coroner's responsibility and, on occasion, it is necessary to conduct quite an extensive investigation into collateral issues. In this regard, coroners need to be concerned with more than the strict legal requirements of their role. They need to be sensitive to any particular features of the matter before them which may demand special attention.

Coroners do not punish people for what the evidence at an inquest indicates they may have done. Responsibility for that falls to other bodies."
THE ROLE OF THE CORONER - The Hon.JAR. Dowd, MP - Attorney General for New South Wales
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/1991/8.pdf

 

[JLZ]

While what you are saying is technically true, the speculation is very narrow. As narrow as being easily able to pin it down to one perpetrator who is named throughout the proceedings. Counsel assisting the Coroner can make it very clear who they think is responsible for a murder.

For example, when reading the Lyn Dawson inquest report (Friday 28 February 2003), it is blatantly clear who the known person is. He (Chris Dawson) is named and discussed numerous times.

https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/2003inquestday5-compressed.pdf

And that is why I feel that it is splitting hairs. The exact same thing may happen in William's inquest. One person may be named and referred to over and over and over by the counsel assisting the Coroner, then the Coroner could make a finding that William is deceased and a recommendation is being put forth to the DPP for the charging of a known person with the crime. It won't take a genius to work out who the known person is.

I thought perhaps some people were not splitting hairs but confused by seemingly contradictory research results.

 

[Karinna]

IMO the CI into WT's case will hopefully bring some clarity to the whole situation, and sort out some of the media inconsistencies that have been reported over the past few years about the case, that have at times been confusing to the public in regard to all that transpired to cause his disappearance.

 

[papertrail]

I don't think the Dawson inquests were under the 2009 coroners act anyway? Wasn't the two inquests in 2001 & 2003.............

https://www.smh.com.au/national/cor...over-wifes-disappearance-20030228-gdgcke.html

Coroner recommends murder charges over wife's disappearance

The newspaper headlines were as such that to read such would indicate the coroner had named the husband. When in fact the only thing indicated by the coroner was...a known person.