In the matter of an inquest into the death of Master Stephen Geddis
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | His Honour Judge McGurgan |
| Judgment Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICoroner 2 |
| Court | Coroners Court (NI) |
| Date | 06 September 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICoroner 2
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: [2022] NICoroner 2
Delivered: 06/09/2022
IN THE MATTER OF THE CORONERS ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1959
IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF
MASTER STEPHEN GEDDIS
_________
BEFORE HIS HONOUR JUDGE McGURGAN,
SITTING AS A CORONER
_________
Sections Paragraphs
Introduction [1] – [4]
The law relating to the holding of Inquests [5] – [7]
Effect of delay on evidence [8]
Case management [9] – [19]
Scope [20] – [21]
The scene [22] – [39]
Medical evidence [40] – [48]
Evidence from the Geddis family [49] – [62]
Civilian evidence [63] – [176]
Military evidence [177] – [337]
Police evidence [338] – [354]
Baton rounds [355] – [401]
Ballistics [402] – [404]
Pathology [405] – [416]
Consideration of the evidence [417] – [423]
Fact Finding as to the full circumstances of the
death of Stephen Geddis [424] – [463]
Verdict [464]
________
Appearances
Mr Frank O’Donoghue QC with Ms Laura McMahon BL appeared on my
behalf, instructed by Sinéad Mallon, Legacy Inquest Unit (LIU);
2
Ms Fiona Doherty QC with Mr Michael Mulvenna BL appeared on behalf of
the Next of Kin, instructed by Padraig Ó Muirigh, Ó Muirigh Solicitors;
Mr Mark Robinson QC with Ms Leona Gillen BL and Mr John Rafferty BL
appeared on behalf of the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Police Service for
Northern Ireland (PSNI), instructed by the Charlene Mullin and Kristina
Davidson, Crown Solicitor’s Office (CSO);
Mr Ian Skelt QC with Mr Andrew McGuinness BL appeared on behalf of
SGM3 instructed by Stephen Clarke and Brian Turkington, McCartan
Turkington Breen Solicitors;
Mr Joseph Aiken QC with Mr David Russell BL appeared on behalf of
SGM15, instructed by James Dunn, Devonshires Solicitors.
Introduction
[1] This inquest concerns the death of Master Stephen Geddis, who was born on
the 25 February 1965 and who died at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast on the 30
August 1975 as a result of a head injury he sustained in the Divis area of Belfast on
the evening of the 28 August 1975.
[2] The circumstances of Stephen Geddis’ death were the subject of a number of
previous investigations. Following the police and military investigation that
immediately followed Stephen Geddis’ death in August/September 1975, an inquest
into his death was conducted on 8 January 1976. A verdict of misadventure was
recorded.
[3] In 1995-96 a further police investigation was conducted following disclosures
made by a former serving soldier, John Patrick Ward. That investigation did not lead
to any criminal or other proceedings.
[4] The Attorney-General for Northern Ireland directed on 12 June 2014 that this
fresh inquest be held pursuant to section 14(1) of the Coroners Act (Northern
Ireland) 1959 (“the Act”). In preparation for this Inquest statements from most of the
potential witnesses were taken by a coroner’s investigator assigned by me for that
purpose. The inquest commenced on the 23 August 2021 at Banbridge Courthouse
and received oral and written evidence from Mr Brian Murphy, Consulting
Engineer, and all of the civilian witnesses between 23 August 2021 and 1 September
2021. It received further evidence from the remaining witnesses between 1 February
2022 and 10 February 2022. No objection having been raised by any of the Interested
Persons, I exercised my power under section 18 of the Act not to summon a jury. I
would like to place on record my sincere thanks to all Counsel and their instructing
solicitors for the way in which this very sensitive and traumatic event was
approached. I wish to pay particular thanks to the solicitor to the inquest, Ms Sinéad
Mallon from the LIU whose work throughout has been invaluable.
The law relating to the holding of inquests
3
[5] Rule 15 of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland)
1963 (“the 1963 Rules”) provides that the proceedings and evidence of an inquest
shall be directed to ascertaining:
(i) Who the deceased was;
(ii) How, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(iii) The particulars for the time being required by the Births and Deaths
Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 to be registered concerning
the death.
[6] Previous State investigations into the circumstances surrounding the death of
Stephen Geddis established that a possible cause of the head injury from which he
died was a plastic baton round discharged by a serving soldier. I have accordingly
applied the procedural requirements of Article 2 ECHR and it is therefore necessary
for me to consider, without attributing civil or criminal liability, the broad
circumstances in which the death occurred including, whether or not the force used
was justified. See Jordan [2014] NIQB 11 at para [121] and Re Deery [2017] NI Coroner
1 at paras [8] and [9].
[7] As to the onus and burden of proof justifying the use of force, it is for the
State (in this case the MOD) to justify the force used to the civil standard of proof
(the balance of probabilities). See Re Deery supra at paras [11] and [12]. See also
R (On the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty’s Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020]
UKSC 46. In applying the civil standard of proof, I remain cognisant of the fact that
the more serious the allegation or the more serious the consequences if the allegation
were proved, the stronger must be the evidence before a court will find the
allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. See R(N) v Mental Health Review
Tribunal Northern Region [2005] EWCA Civ 1605 para [62]; Re CD’s application [2008]
UKHL 33 (opinion of Lord Carswell at para [28], adopted expressly by the Northern
Ireland Court of Appeal in Steponaviciene, An application for judicial review [2020]
NICA 61 at para [60]).
Effect of delay on evidence
[8] I should also say something as to the effect that a delay of approximately 46
years has had on the quality of the evidence that I heard during this inquest. I can
fully appreciate that the passage of time has diminished the quality of witnesses’
memories. This is because some will have actively tried to put the events of that
evening from their minds; others will have relived those events constantly but
recollections may have become distorted over time. In the course of this hearing I
have been impressed by the efforts of the witnesses (with one exception to which I
shall make reference later) to give as honest and open an account as was possible
within the limitations inevitably caused by the delay that has occurred. Where I have
rejected a witness’ account, either expressly or by implication, it is not to be
To continue reading
Request your trial