MR MOORE (continuing):

The function of the Board of Inquiry under the Inquiries Act 1991 is to inquire into matters specified in the Board's terms of reference and to submit a report to the Chief Minister. There is no legislative provision for resolving the paramountcy of either tribunal in the event that their functions overlap.

In addition, however, to the reporting functions which both have, the Coroner is empowered, where (s)he is of the opinion that the evidence presented is capable of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed an indictable offence, to initiate criminal processes against that person. I note also that section 73(i)(b) of the Inquiries Act makes it an offence for a person to "wilfully interrupt, interfere with or obstruct the proceedings of the (Coroner)". It was perhaps in recognition of the serious consequences, ie, criminal charges, that can flow from an inquest that the terms of reference of the Board of Inquiry required it to "liaise with the Chief Coroner to ensure full co-operation".

Whether the point has now been reached where the Board of Inquiry will, by virtue of its overlapping functions, impede the future conduct of an inquest is not a matter which I can address. The issues raised by the Chief Coroner in his letter are based on matters within his knowledge which are not known to me. I note, however, that he makes reference to "possible criminal offences, some of which are serious" arising from matters which are the subject of investigation for the purpose of an inquest.

Section 19 of the Inquiries Act, to which the Chief Magistrate refers in his letter, is of potentially broad scope. It precludes from use other than by the Board of Inquiry any information, document or thing obtained as a direct or indirect consequence of the making of a statement or a disclosure to the Board of Inquiry.

As the Chief Coroner points out in his letter, if matters incriminating of a witness are given by or through that witness to the Board of Inquiry they and other matters, including information obtained as an indirect consequence thereof, could not be used in subsequent criminal or civil proceedings. In circumstances where, according to the Chief Coroner's letter, there appears to be some prospect of criminal proceedings (including those of a serious nature) and, having regard to the fact of death, injury and some property damage in consequence of the demolition of the buildings, the likelihood of civil proceedings, the proceedings of the Board of Inquiry, in my view, have the potential to serious complicate and possibly impede the proper conduct of a coronial inquest. I note also that subjecting persons to an obligation to give evidence to the Board of Inquiry could interfere with the ordinary processes of police investigation in a way that might affect the quality of the evidence to be given to a Coroner's Inquest.