In the matter of an inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan - full judgment
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] NICoroner 1 |
| Court | Coroners Court (NI) |
| Date | 07 November 2016 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2016] NICoroner 1 Ref :
HOR9938FULL
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
7/11/2016
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF
PATRICK PEARSE JORDAN
_________
HORNER J
Framework of Judgment
Paragraphs
A. INTRODUCTION [1]-[8]
B. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS [9]
C. BACKGROUND INFORMATION [10]-[51]
D. ONUS AND STANDARD OF PROOF [52]-[62]
E. LEGACY INQUESTS [63]-[68]
F. PREVAILING CONDITIONS IN NORTHERN IRELAND
1992 AND 1993 [69]-[75]
G. DELAY AND MEMORY [76]-[79]
H. CREDIBILITY [80]-[88]
I. ANONYMITY AND SCREENING APPLICATIONS [89]-[136]
J. HMSU AND TASKING AND CO-ORDINATING
GROUP [137]-[141]
K. POLICE LOGS, PRESS REPORTS AND DISCLOSURE [142]-[157]
L. THE ORION, ARIZONA STREET AND THE DECEASED [158]-163]
M. THE DEBRIEF [164]-[172]
N. ARTICLE 2 – SELF-DEFENCE [173]-[192]
O. REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE
NEXT OF KIN [193]-[196]
2
P. REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PSNI [197]
Q. THE EVIDENCE [198]-[303]
(i) The Police Evidence
(ii) The Civilian Evidence
(iii) Expert Evidence
R. STALKER SAMPSON REPORTS AND THE POLICE
OMBUDSMAN’S REPORT [304]-[317]
S. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS [318]-[329]
T. FINDINGS ON KEY ISSUES [330]-[333]
U. CONCLUSION [334]
V RECOMMENDATIONS [335]
W. FURTHER THOUGHTS [336]-[337]
HORNER J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan Deceased (“the
Deceased”) who died aged 22 years. He was shot by Sergeant A of the Headquarters
Mobile Support Unit (“HMSU”), a section of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”)
on 25 November 1992 on the Falls Road, Belfast shortly after 5.00pm. The original
inquest commenced on 4 January 1995. That was adjourned part heard. A further
inquest held at the end of 2012 was set aside by the High Court and the Court of
Appeal. The inquiry into the death of the Deceased has been beset by numerous
legal challenges.
[2] Girvan LJ giving judgment in the Court of Appeal in In the Matter of an
Application by Officers C, D, H and R Serving and Retired Members of the Royal
Ulster Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland for Leave to Apply for
Judicial Review and Others [2012] NICA 47 said at paragraph [30]. (Emphasis
Added):
“The conduct of inquests into contentious deaths
occurring during Northern Ireland’s troubled times
and the seemingly endless satellite litigation
generated in relation to them call to mind aspects
3
of Jarndyce v Jarndyce which Dickens so graphically
described in his novel. When questions arising in the
inquest into the death of the Deceased Patrick Pearse
Jordan (who died as long ago as November 1992)
were before the House of Lords in 2007 the inquest,
which had opened in January 1995, was described by
Lord Bingham as lamentably delayed. A further five
years have elapsed. There appears to have been a
large number of judicial review applications
generated in the proceedings. There have been
on-going delays in the furnishing of material and
interminable interlocutory disputes in relation to the
proposed conduct of the inquest. Delay in any inquest
may well lead to the unavailability of witnesses and
inevitably will lead to the actual or claimed fading of
witnesses’ memories in relation to significant facts.
Huge quantities of documents have been generated in
the course of procedural wrangles in these cases quite
apart from the investigation of substantive issues.
Enormous amounts of public funds have been spent
in the pursuit of issues subsidiary to the central
questions to be determined in the inquests. Coroners
have been frustrated in their attempts to get the
inquests up and running. Ironically the pursuit of
procedural correctness in such inquests by parties
intent on ensuring that they are compliant with
Article 2 requirements has resulted in delays which
themselves undermine the very object which the
satellite litigation has sought to achieve. Sometimes,
as Voltaire said, the best can be the enemy of the
good.”
[3] The comparison with Jarndyce v Jarndyce is well made. By 2014 when the
Court of Appeal heard In the Matter of Three Applications by Hugh Jordan for
Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 11 there had been 24 judicial reviews, 14 appeals to the
Court of Appeal, one hearings in the House of Lords and one hearing before the
European Court of Human Rights. The original inquest was adjourned. There was
another inquest held in 2012 which was quashed by Stephens J following a judicial
review. That decision itself was appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Court of
Appeal provided further guidance on the future conduct of the investigation into the
Deceased’s death.
Delay, the enemy of justice, has been an inevitable consequence of all these
proceedings. Furthermore the costs of this litigation have grown exponentially. As
Girvan LJ said paragraph [29]:
To continue reading
Request your trial