The inquest into the drowning of a teenage girl when a boat capsized on the Moruya River bar has been suspended pending possible criminal prosecution.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Georgia Vizovitis, aged 13, died on Saturday, March 24, 2018, after she was trapped beneath the capsized boat.
Coroner Doug Dick on Wednesday, March 27, suspended the inquest after some witnesses elected not to give evidence and legal teams said they would not cross-examine those who did.
Instead, he will refer the matter to the NSW Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), who will determine whether or not to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Mr Dick told the inquest he had a "substantial brief of evidence" and regretted family members present in Batemans Bay Court would not get "closure" that day.
"I have a substantial brief of evidence and I am now required to suspend this inquest and indicate that I have an intention to refer the matter to the DPP.
"It is disappointing that many come to court today, hoping for some closure, but that will not occur.
"It is now a matter for the DPP."
Mr Dick said an inquest was not a trial.
"A coronial inquest is essentially an inquiry; it is not a criminal or civil trial in which two opposing parties engage in legal combat," he said.
"It is not my role as coroner to attribute fault or make findings in relation to negligence or breach of a duty of care.
"It has been indicated that certain persons have elected not to give evidence.
"This court is bound by procedural fairness. I have been told a number of witnesses who were to be called to give evidence will not be cross-examined and therefore their statements can be tendered.
"In relation to those who have elected not to give evidence, they rely upon the privilege provided at law against self-incrimination. This is because those persons have a legal right not to admit any offence.
"The objection may be specific or global. I have been told that in each instance there is a global objection to the giving of evidence, in other words, there is an objection to answering all questions relating to the matters to be touched upon by this inquest."
The DPP must now consider Mr Dick's reasons for referring the matter and decide whether to proceed with a criminal case.
