Finucane (Geraldine) Application for Judicial Review and in the matter of a decision of The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Ruling on post - judgment issues)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Judgment Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 42 |
| Date | 30 March 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 42
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO12122
ICOS No: 21/014639/01
Delivered: 30/03/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GERALDINE FINUCANE
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION OF
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
RULING ON POST-JUDGMENT ISSUES
___________
SCOFFIELD J
Introduction
[1] I previously gave a judgment on the substance of the applicant’s claim in the
above proceedings: see Re Finucane’s Application [2022] NIKB 37. This short ruling
should be read in conjunction with that previous judgment. I allowed the applicant’s
application for judicial review and made a declaration to the effect that, at the date of
the judgment in December 2022, there had still not been an article 2 compliant
inquiry into the death of her husband, Patrick Finucane. In addition, I quashed the
Secretary of State’s decision of 30 November 2020; and made a declaration that it had
been unlawful for the respondent to fail to reconsider his decision at the point when
he learned that the PSNI review process had concluded in May 2021. Subject only to
the fact that an appeal is now being pursued by the respondent in respect of the
entirety of the judgment, no issue arises for present purposes about any of the above
orders.
[2] In addition, I indicated that I intended to make a further order requiring the
respondent to reconsider the Government’s response to the Supreme Court’s
declaration of 27 February 2019 in Ms Finucane’s case, including by incorporating a
specific timeframe within which the outcome of such a further decision should be
communicated, unless a satisfactory equivalent undertaking to the court was
provided. This was expressly not for the purpose of ongoing supervision by the
To continue reading
Request your trial