In the matter of an inquest touching upon the deaths of Daniel Doherty and William Fleming (Ruling on engagement with the Coroner's Investigator and The Provision of Witness Evidence)
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Huddleston J |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NICoroner 1 |
| Date | 19 January 2023 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NICoroner 1
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: HUD12011
ICOS No:
Delivered: 19/01/2023
IN THE CORONER’S COURT IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATHS OF
DANIEL DOHERTY AND WILLIAM FLEMING
___________
RULING ON ENGAGEMENT WITH THE CORONER’S INVESTIGATOR AND
THE PROVISION OF WITNESS EVIDENCE
___________
HUDDLESTON J
Background
[1] The issues dealt with in this ruling arise out of case management leading
towards an inquest to be held into the deaths of Daniel Doherty and
William Fleming.
[2] Whilst considerable preliminary work and investigation has been carried out
in preparation for that inquest those who represent the military witnesses (witnesses
F, G, H, I, J, P, Q and R) (“the Military Witnesses”) have requested, through written
submission, that those witnesses be allowed to provide their witness statements
through their own solicitors (in this case Devonshires) rather than through the
offices of the investigator appointed for that purpose by the Coroner’s Service of
Northern Ireland (CSNI). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) have filed written
submissions which are supportive of that approach. Junior Counsel to the Inquiry,
Steven McQuitty, circulated his note of advices to me, to all parties in advance of the
hearing that was convened on 2 December 2022 to allow all parties to make oral
submissions in support of their written submissions.
[3] Broadly speaking, there is acceptance across those submissions that a coroner
may, by issue of a notice, require a person to attend an inquest to give evidence
(section 17A(1)(a)(b) of the Coroners Act (NI) 1959 (the Act)) and may (again, by
notice) require a person to provide evidence to the coroner about a matter specified
in such a notice in the form of a written statement (section 17A(2)(a) of the Act).
Those statutory provisions (and others that are relevant) have been replicated in the
appendix to this judgment for ease of reference. In short, whilst those who represent
the Military Witnesses accept that there is power to require a statement, they do not
To continue reading
Request your trial