In the matter of an inquest into the deaths of John Dougal, Patrick Butler, Noel Fitzpatrick, David McCafferty and Margaret Gargan (The Springhill Inquest) - Ruling No. 6 on application by military witnesses for anonymity, screening and remote evidence
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Scoffield J |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] NICoroner 9 |
| Date | 01 February 2024 |
| Court | Coroners Court (NI) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2024] NICoroner 9
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: SCO12419
ICOS No:
Delivered: 01/02/2024
IN THE CORONER’S COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST INTO THE DEATHS OF
JOHN DOUGAL, PATRICK BUTLER, NOEL FITZPATRICK,
DAVID McCAFFERTY AND MARGARET GARGAN
(‘THE SPRINGHILL INQUEST’)
___________
RULING (NUMBER 6)
ON APPLICATIONS BY MILITARY WITNESSES
FOR ANONYMITY, SCREENING AND REMOTE EVIDENCE
___________
SCOFFIELD J (sitting as a coroner)
Introduction
[1] This is an inquest into five deaths which occurred on 9 July 1972 in the
Springhill and Westrock areas of Belfast. A brief summary of the factual background
is contained in my ruling of 27 February 2023 (‘Ruling No 1’): [2023] NICoroner 24.
This ruling concerns a variety of applications which have been made by former
military witnesses (FMWs) – that is, persons whom it is proposed to call as witnesses
who were soldiers at the time of the events in question but who are now retired from
that role – who seek anonymity and/or screening and the facility to provide their
evidence by way of remote video-link.
The applications on the part of military witnesses / PIPs
[2] The following witnesses (some of whom have also been granted properly
interested person status in the proceedings) have applied for anonymity: SM10,
SM16, SM17, SM57, SM79, SM92, SM93, SM95, SM100, SM104, SM106, SM108,
SM113, SM114, SM123, SM207, SM209, SM278, SM279, SM344, SM346, SM348 and
SM349. As is obvious, all of these witnesses were provided with ciphers on a
provisional basis in the expectation that some of them might seek anonymity in due
course.
[3] Most of those FMWs who have sought anonymity have also sought screening.
Where screening is sought, it is generally requested that the witness be screened from
everyone save the coroner, court staff, legal representatives and the families of the
2
deceased. In one case, a FMW (SM113) is content not to be screened if they are
granted anonymity and permitted to give their evidence remotely. In another case
(that of SM16), no application for screening has been made. Some unrepresented
FMWs have applied for anonymity but not screening; although it is possible that a
further application in that regard may be made in due course.
[4] The represented FMWs who have applied for anonymity have also
consistently applied for the facility of providing evidence from a remote location via
a live video-link, so that they do not have to travel to Northern Ireland.
[5] A number of witnesses have also requested additional assistance by way of
special hearing measures. There is also one application on the part of a FMW
(SM231) for excusal on medical grounds, although supporting medical evidence in
relation to this is awaited. A small number of FMWs have yet to confirm their
position in relation to any such applications.
[6] I have received written applications from FMWs; oral submissions in support
of the applications from counsel for the MOD; and written and oral submissions
from counsel for those witnesses or PIPs represented by Devonshires Solicitors. All
of the applications are opposed by the next of kin (NOK) represented by Ó Muirigh
Solicitors; and I have received a variety of written and oral representations from
several different counsel for those NOK in opposition to the applications. The non-
state and non-military PIPs supported and adopted the opposition to the applications
which was presented by the NOK. I am grateful to all counsel for their submissions.
Video-link applications
[7] It is open to me to permit oral evidence to be provided remotely and I have
already done so in a number of instances for civilian witnesses giving evidence in
these inquest proceedings. I was invited by a number of counsel for the NOK to
determine this aspect of the FMWs’ applications first, since it is conceivable that, if
these applications are granted, that may sound on the question of anonymity and
screening.
[8] A power to use live links is presently contained in section 57 of, along with
Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 27 to, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (“the 2020 Act”). This
power is currently scheduled to expire on 24 March 2024 (see the provisions of the
Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and
Tribunals) No 2 Order (Northern Ireland) 2023). In order to give a direction for
participation by live link under these proceedings, I must be satisfied that it is in the
interests of justice to do so (see para 2(4) of Part 2 of Schedule 27). In deciding
whether to give such a direction, I must consider all the circumstances of the case.
[9] One matter to which regard must be had under the 2020 Act is that of public
health. In my view, public health interests are not a highly material consideration in
this case. They are not, however, completely irrelevant. Although the public health
To continue reading
Request your trial