| Ahio v State Coroner of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 480 |
Ahio v State Coroner of New South Wales [2026] – Application for Order That No Forensic Post Mortem Examination Be Conducted – Coroners – Mr Anthony Strik
In Ahio v State Coroner of New South Wales [2026], Mr Strik appeared as counsel for the plaintiff Mrs Ahio, in the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court. This matter was heard over multiple days with Hmelnitsky J delivering judgement on 29 May 2026.
Background
The plaintiff, Mrs Ahio, is the mother of the deceased, Mr Ahio, who passed away after being shot at his friend’s home. The police conducted an investigation and described his death as “suspicious.”
In these proceedings, Mrs Ahio made an application under s 97 of the Coroners Act 2009 (NSW) (‘the Act’) for an order that no forensic post mortem examination be conducted on her son’s remains.
Prior to Court, Mrs Ahio had emailed the NSW Coroners Court twice, formally objecting to post mortem examinations. However, Coroner Yang directed that a forensic post mortem be conducted, due to its necessity and desirability in assisting in the investigation of Mr Ahio’s death (pursuant to s 89(1) of the Act).
Legal Issues
His Honour cited the relevant statutory provisions in the Act and noted Mrs Ahio’s ability to object to post mortem as his senior next of kin (s 96).
Cultural & Religious Practices
Hmelnitsky J then examined the relevance of the plaintiff’s cultural background. Mrs Ahio submitted that she and her family (including the deceased) are Catholics who attach spiritual significance to the physical body and believe it must be treated with dignity, even post-death. She also highlighted that in Tongan culture, the deceased’s body is considered sacred and a burial should be prompt.
She addressed the grief and trauma she has experienced as a result of her son’s death, and the intergenerational and communal nature of this suffering. In her affidavit, she expressed that a post mortem is likely to “intensify” this suffering.
His Honour cited several cases where the judge decided against a post mortem where there are:
- No suspicious circumstances; and
- The next of kin has a strong cultural/religious belief in opposition to the examination.
For example, in Green v Johnstone, Beach J argued that “great weight” ought to be given to cultural and religious laws, however, in deaths that involved “suspicious circumstances” the societal interests would outweigh the interests of the deceased’s family. In this case, the Court ultimately decided to prevent a post mortem from being conducted on the deceased.
Suspicious Circumstances
His Honour stated that the present case was distinguishable from this authority, because, in Green v Johnstone, there were no suspicious circumstances associated with the death. Contrastingly, “the circumstances surrounding Mr Ahio’s death are highly suspicious and they are being treated by the police as such,” evident in the active police investigation where a person could potentially be charged.
Though Hmelnitsky J described Mrs Ahio’s submissions as “moving and persuasive”, he highlighted that there was a “powerful public interest” in the investigation of Mr Ahio’s death, including an execution of justice. To support this, he cited the Attorney General’s submissions that it is “imperative” that a forensic post mortem be conducted.
Outcome
Hmelnitsky J confirmed the Coroner’s direction that a medical investigator conduct a forensic post mortem on the remains of Mr Ahio (pursuant to s 97(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
Analysis
When relatives of the deceased object to post mortem examinations, evidence of spiritual and cultural practices can be significant and persuasive. However, this ultimately does not negate the public interest of a forensic examination where the circumstances of the death are suspicious, and there is a public interest that weighs against the interests of the deceased’s family.
Anthony Strik accepts briefs in coronial and administrative law matters. If you require experienced legal representation, please contact his chambers.