In the matter of an inquest into the death of Patrick McElhone
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] NICoroner 1 |
| Court | Coroners Court (NI) |
| Date | 21 January 2021 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2021] NICoroner 1
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: [2021] NICoroner 1
Delivered: 21/01/2021
IN THE MATTER OF THE CORONERS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1959
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF
PATRICK McELHONE
_________
BEFORE MRS JUSTICE KEEGAN, SITTING AS A CORONER
HEARING ON 30 NOVEMBER 2020 - 4 DECEMBER 2020
AND 7 JANUARY 2021
_________
Sections Paragraphs
Introduction [1]-[5]
Preliminary issues/case management [6]-[15]
Legal considerations [16]-[22]
Scope/issues [23]-[24]
Setting the scene/engineering evidence [25]-[31]
Civilian evidence [32]-[46]
Pathology [47]-[48]
Ballistics [49]-[52]
RUC witnesses [53]-[71]
Military evidence [72]-[115]
Conclusions from the evidence [116]-[139]
Verdict
Introduction
[1] This inquest investigates the death of Patrick Anthony McElhone who was
24 years old when he died as a result of injuries sustained when on 7 August 1974 he
was shot and killed at Limehill, near Pomeroy, County Tyrone. There is no dispute
that Mr McElhone was shot by a soldier and that soldier was Lance Corporal
Roy Alun Jones, a member of A Company, First Battalion, of The Royal Regiment of
Wales. This inquest is unusual in that a criminal trial has already occurred as Lance
Corporal Jones was charged with the murder of Mr McElhone and acquitted of that
charge on 27 March 1975. That case was the subject of an Attorney General’s
reference which was heard by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the House
2
of Lords. A civil case was also taken by the next of kin which was settled.
Subsequent to the criminal trial an inquest in relation to Mr McElhone’s death took
place on 29 April 1975 and returned with an open verdict. Lance Corporal Jones is
now deceased.
[2] The Attorney General for Northern Ireland directed a fresh inquest by
correspondence of 20 December 2018. By virtue of section 14(1) of the Coroners Act
(Northern Ireland) 1959 the Coroner must proceed with an inquest when such a
direction is made. There is no discretion in relation to this.
[3] I am a High Court Judge but I am also appointed as a Coroner. With the
agreement of all I heard this case sitting without a jury.
[4] The next of kin of Mr McElhone were represented by Patrick Fahy Solicitors
who instructed Mr Des Fahy QC and Mr Michael Forde of counsel. The Ministry of
Defence (“MOD”) were represented by the Crown Solicitor’s Office who instructed
Mr Aiken QC. One military witness, Private Bedford, was represented by
Devonshires Solicitors and they instructed Mr Egan of counsel who appeared for his
evidence only.
[5] I heard the case in Omagh between 30 November 2020 and 4 December 2020
and on 7 January 2021 at the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast. I was attended by
Sinéad Mallon, solicitor of the Legacy Inquest Unit (“LIU”) and counsel Fiona
Doherty QC and Denise Kiley of counsel. I am very grateful for all of the assistance
provided by the various legal representatives. My findings are in narrative form as
follows.
Preliminary issues: Case management
[6] I case managed this case during my time as Presiding Coroner in
Northern Ireland as part of the review into all outstanding legacy cases. During that
review I decided that this case should form part of the year 1 cases as part of the
Lord Chief Justice’s 5 year plan. I retained the case myself and with the input of all
counsel I decided that it was feasible to hear this case in November 2020,
notwithstanding the Covid 19 pandemic. I am grateful that Mr Fahy specifically
thanked the court and the LIU for keeping this inquest on track. I also thank all staff,
solicitors and counsel for making this possible.
[7] The case proceeded in hybrid form, meaning that a mix of remote technology
and live courtroom attendance was utilised. The case proceeded in a socially
distanced court in Omagh with solicitors, counsel and some next of kin present. I
allowed others, including the media, to link in remotely. I issued a protocol at the
outset (circulated on the JudiciaryNI website
https://www.judiciaryni.uk/sites/judiciary/files/media-
files/McElhone%20Inquest%20-%20Video-Link%20Protocol.pdf and attached hereto
3
in Annex 1) to ensure that everyone understood the rules associated with remote
hearings and happily there were no breaches in relation to this.
[8] As part of my case management I allowed partial or full anonymity for those
military witnesses who applied. Most witnesses were not fully anonymised given
the previous public hearings in relation to this incident. I also allowed many of the
witnesses to give evidence via live video link by virtue of the Coronavirus Act 2020.
I did not allow screening for any witness.
[9] Whilst live link was clearly a pragmatic solution during the pandemic, I have
also utilised this medium in other inquests pre-pandemic under common law case
management powers. In my view such methods are useful in legacy cases where
witnesses, civilian and military, are often elderly and outside the jurisdiction. The
focus in this type of exercise is to ensure that the evidence is obtained and
transmitted in the most effective way.
[10] When using remote technology there is a need to ensure that it works. Thus, I
ran tests for each witness in advance. An agreed bundle of documents was sent to
each witness in advance as I wanted to make sure that witnesses had access to the
relevant papers. For some of the witnesses, representatives from the LIU were with
witnesses in remote locations. We used a variety of locations including hotels and
polices stations and private homes. When LIU representatives were not present I
allowed family members to accompany witnesses or ensured they could manage
without support. I record the high level of collaboration between the parties in
relation to these issues which meant that this inquest could proceed as a hybrid
hearing on schedule. In this case all interested parties agreed that the approach was
the best to ensure that the inquest could proceed.
[11] I mention another point in this section. Certain witnesses did not wish to be
interviewed by my Investigators to allow a statement to be filed in advance. I
should say that these witnesses had filed historical statements but the usual practice
is for Investigators to speak to witnesses and collect any evidence in advance. I did
not consider that a section 17A notice pursuant to the Coroners Act (Northern
Ireland) 1959 was appropriate in these cases. The witnesses in the inquest are
witnesses of the Coroner and not a particular party. That is because this is an
inquisitorial process, albeit with adversarial elements. In recognition of the issues
involved in these cases witnesses have availed of their own legal advice. However, I
follow a process of the Coroner collecting the evidence rather than anyone else.
[12] Hence, as no statement was provided by four of the witnesses in advance I
simply called them to give evidence. I then had a transcript prepared and that forms
a record of the evidence. I adjourned any questioning from the interested parties to
allow them to consider the evidence given. As a result I heard the evidence of four
military witnesses in two parts.
To continue reading
Request your trial