Bunting's (Suzanne) Application and in the matter of a decision of The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 43 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 43
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO12120
ICOS No: 19/045782/01
Delivered: 30/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION BY SUZANNE BUNTING
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
Hugh Southey KC and Stephen Toal (instructed by KRW Law) for the Applicant
Mark Robinson KC and Philip Henry (instructed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office) for the
Respondent
Greg Berry KC and Michael Chambers (instructed by the Special Advocates’ Support
Office) as special advocates appointed by the Advocate General for Northern Ireland
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] By this application the applicant, Suzanne Bunting, challenges a decision by
the Secretary of State for Northern (SSNI) (“the Secretary of State”) to certify,
pursuant to section 14(2) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 (“the 1959
Act”), that there is information relevant to the question of whether a direction
should be given for a new inquest to be held which is or includes information the
disclosure of which may be against the interests of national security. Where such a
certification is made, the decision on whether a new inquest should be directed
transfers from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (“the Attorney General”)
to the Advocate General for Northern Ireland (“the Advocate General”) who is also
the Attorney General for England and Wales. The applicant does not wish the
decision as to whether to grant a fresh inquest to be taken by Advocate General. She
is concerned that that decision should not be taken by a member of the United
Kingdom Government in light of the background to the death in question.
2
[2] The applicant was represented by Mr Southey KC and Mr Toal; and the
respondent by Mr Robinson KC and Mr Henry. As discussed in further detail
below, the court was also assisted by special advocates appointed to represent the
interests of the applicant in a closed material procedure, Mr Berry KC and
Mr Chambers. I am grateful to all counsel for their helpful written and oral
submissions.
Factual background
[3] Ronald Bunting was murdered on 15 October 1980. Mr Bunting came from
the protestant and unionist background but later became involved with Irish
republican organisations. He was killed in a gun attack at his family home on that
date. Mr Noel Little, who was at the Bunting house as a guest, was also killed in the
incident. The murder was later claimed on behalf of the UDA. The applicant in this
case is Mr Bunting’s widow. She is concerned that there may have been an element
of state involvement (or, in her words, “hallmarks of collusion”) in his death. There
is a dispute as to the extent to which state actors were, or may have been, aware in
advance of what may happen to Mr Bunting. The applicant’s concerns are
summarised in the following extracts from her grounding affidavit in these
proceedings:
“Despite the extensive coverage of this murder, in recent
times my family have become deeply suspicious that we
have never been told the truth about what happened.
On 26 May 2016, new allegations were reported in the
media. In particular, it was reported that on 15 October
1980, acting on Special Branch information, police officers
from E4A were briefed to do a ‘close target rescue’ at our
home… However, before full coverage was completed the
team of police officers were ordered to stand down and
return to base, even though intelligence had confirmed
that a gun team were to make an attempt on the
deceased’s life…
This information was seemingly provided by an unnamed
whistle-blower who was a former member of the security
forces.”
[4] In light of this new information, the applicant made an application for a fresh
inquest relying on section 14(1) of the 1959 Act. The applicant has also referred to a
number of other published materials which, she believes, support the view that her
husband’s life may have been lost as a result of intelligence services’ actions against
the INLA. She has further referred to a number of unusual features in respect of the
murder of her husband which might be thought to suggest that the murder was
either facilitated or inadequately investigated.
To continue reading
Request your trial