B's Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy LJ |
| Judgment Date | 17 December 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] NIQB 76 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 17 December 2020 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2020] NIQB 76
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: TRE11373
ICOS No: 2019/66082/01
Delivered: 17/12/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY ‘B’
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
Before: Treacy LJ, O’Hara J & Sir John Gillen
___________
David Scoffield QC with Gordon Anthony BL (instructed by McCartan Turkington &
Breen Solicitors) for the Applicant
Tony McGleenan QC with Philip Henry BL for the Respondent
Ivor McAteer QC with David Heraghty BL (instructed by Desmond J Doherty & Co
Solicitors) for the Notice Parties
___________
TREACY LJ (Delivering the Judgment of the Court)
Introduction
[1] By this application the applicant, a former member of the British Army,
challenges the decision of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland to
prosecute him for the murder of Daniel Hegarty and the wounding with intent of
Christopher Hegarty. The primary focus of his challenge is the contention that the
impugned decision is unlawful on the ground that it is in breach of his right to life
under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and contrary to the
Human Rights Act 1998, by reason of the medical evidence of the consequences for
the applicant of the decision.
2
[2] The court was informed that following the initiation of the judicial review
process the PPS, at the invitation of the legal representatives of the applicant, have
not taken any further steps to progress the prosecution.
[3] By agreement of the parties and the Court this is a “rolled-up” hearing which
will determine whether the threshold for the grant of leave has been met and, if so,
whether the judicial review should be allowed or dismissed.
Anonymity & Reporting Restrictions
[4] The Court granted anonymity to the applicant for the purposes of these
proceedings. The application for anonymity was not opposed by the proposed
respondent or the Notice Parties. The Court also made a reporting restriction in the
following terms:
“There shall be a reporting restriction imposed in this
matter, until further Order, whereby the Applicant’s
name (if disclosed at any time during the course of the
proceedings) and any personal information in relation to
the Applicant (including his address or whereabouts, if
disclosed; his age; and the condition of his health,
including in particular the nature of the health problems
which underlie his application to the Court) shall not be
published or disclosed by any party to these proceedings
or other person, including any media outlet, howsoever.”
We record that the proposed respondent did not object to the making of such an
Order, taking a neutral stance. The Notice Parties did not object to the making of the
Order. Representatives of the press were contacted by the applicant’s solicitors and
no objection from the press to the making of the Order was received by the Court. In
light of the authorities and the helpful skeleton argument which was furnished to
the Court we were satisfied that it was appropriate at that stage to make the Order
sought. The Court made it clear that the Order is only in respect of these
proceedings. The issue of anonymity and reporting restrictions in any criminal
proceedings will be a matter for those Courts.
In advance of delivering judgment the parties were given the opportunity to make
written representations as to whether the reporting restrictions should be lifted. The
respondent and the Notice Party do not object to the lifting of the Order. The
applicant does object and reiterates the written submissions made in support of the
original Order.
Cognisant of the fundamental principle of open justice we consider that the
reporting restriction should now be lifted. We bear in mind that the applicant still
retains his anonymity in these proceedings. Publishing a judgment without
referring to the condition of the applicant’s health would mean the very material, of
To continue reading
Request your trial