I am writing in reply to Charles Hector's letter hoping that it will clear some misunderstandings as to what actually transpired during the first day of the inquest vis--vis the applications that were made by Puravalen and myself.

For those who are not familiar with inquest proceedings, the governing provisions can be found under Part VII, Chapter XXXII, namely Sections 328 to 341A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions under the said chapter explain circumstances in which an inquest can be carried out.

Unfortunately, the said chapter is not comprehensive and does not deal with the issue of how an inquest should be conducted and who can participate in an inquest. In the absence of such provisions, there is a lacunae whereby reference can be made to the law relating to current criminal procedure in England. This is made possible pursuant to Section 5 of the Criminal

Procedure Code.

As a result of such lacunae, Puravalen and myself made reference to England's position in relation to inquest, and explained the procedure in England. It was stressed upon the coroner that following from the inquisitorial nature of the coroner's proceedings, there are no 'parties' to an inquest, in the same way that there are in accusatorial or adversarial proceedings such as a trial (hence there is no right to cross-examine or re-examine the witnesses).

Instead there are only 'interested persons'. These 'interested persons' are persons who have an interest recognised to go beyond the interest of ordinary members of the public. They are accordingly given rights greater than those of the public, and are entitled to examine witnesses at an inquest, either in person or by a counsel.

Inter alia, the categories of 'interested persons' are;

  • parent, child spouse and any personal representative of the deceased (Rule 20(2)(a) of the Coroners Rules 1984); and

  • any other person who in the opinion of the coroner is a properly interested person (Rule 20(2)(h) of the Coroners Rules 1984).

    • Puravalen's application on that day was made pursuant to the former category whereas my application was premised on the latter category.

    Based on the above premises, Puravalen was right to make the application, as he did not make an application to cross-examine, but an application to examine the witnesses in his capacity as the counsel for the deceased's family which is an 'interested person'.

    The reason Puravalen's application was disallowed and he was then only allowed to hold a watching brief is because the identity of the deceased is still in question.

    This is where the learned deputy public prosecutor (in his capacity as the court's assisting officer) made an error for not making it clear whether the inquest was in relation to a John Doe or that of Francis Udayappan despite being asked to do so by Puravalen.

    I hope the explanation above will clarify the issues.

    The writer is representing the Bar Council at the aforementioned inquest .