'…proper communication between the parties has now been established, one would hope.' You base this statement on what information?
If you have followed the events you will know that at least one family has decided to communicate with Ardent's representatives only on the basis that it is via their solicitor.
Why do you think the family has taken such action?
A coronial inquest is a long and torturous process for those involved. It is a process of discovery. It is not the role of the coroner or the inquest brief to apportion blame. I suggest you actually spend time sitting in on the proceedings of an Inquest. You might be surprised and perhaps even shocked how often even the most obvious facts are vigorously contested.
Of course I presume that the Inquest you attend is one where the family has the money to hire their own legal counsel. Otherwise you may find yourself watching and hearing a police officer with very limited legal training present the Inquest brief. Not, I stress, on behalf of the family. While, at a minimum, a silk (barrister), senior solicitor and junior solicitor (plus office-based legal researcher) will defend for the (accused) party at the Inquest.
Alternatively, you may decide to read some of the Inquest Findings available electronically from the various state based Coroner's Office. If you compel yourself to read a quantity of these sad insights into human behaviour, then certain themes will emerge. Namely the role of mental health in many circumstances. Another prominent theme will be systematic failings resulting from deficient communication.
That is why I wonder at the recent ethical behaviour of Ardent's Chief Executive Officer and the failings in her own brand of communication.
Fortunately, and it is a small comfort, but now that this tragic incident has become political, my sense is that the families and the people of Queensland will experience an Inquest exemplary in forensic detail and definitive in description.
AAD Price at posting:
$2.01 Sentiment: Sell Disclosure: Not Held
