Considering the "born-alive" rule and possession of sperm following death

In December 2010, the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the State Coroner that there was jurisdiction to conduct an inquest into the death of a newborn infant. The basis for the application was that there was no “reportable death”—as required under the Coroner’s Act 2003 (SA)—because the infant did not satisfy the “bornalive” rule. It was argued that the infant was not “born alive” and, thus, in turn, there was no “death of a person” as required by s 21 of the Act. The Court determined that indeed the child was born alive and that the death fell within the jurisdiction of the Coroner’s Court. Special Leave to Appeal was denied by the High Court in June 2011 on the basis that the question, as argued by the appellant, did not raise a question of general principle and that the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court did not extend the concept of “born alive” (Barrett v Coroner’s Court of South Australia [2011] HCA Trans 165). The coronial inquest is yet to be held