Jordan's (Hugh) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Nicholson LJ |
| Judgment Date | 10 September 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] NICA 29 (1) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 10 September 2004 |
[2004] NICA 29 (1) Ref:
NICC5006
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10/9/04
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CROWN SIDE)
2001 No 188
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HUGH JORDAN
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION TAKEN BY THE
LORD CHANCELLOR
AND
2002 No 10
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HUGH JORDAN
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION TAKEN BY THE CORONER
_________
Before: Nicholson LJ, McCollum LJ and Girvan J
________
NICHOLSON LJ
Introduction
[1] On 25 November 1992 Pearse Jordan was shot and killed by Sergeant A
of the RUC. The RUC carried out an investigation into the death and
submitted a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) on 25 May
1993. He issued a direction on 16 November 1993 that there was to be no
prosecution arising out of the death and the Coroner was informed of this on
29 November 1993.
[2] He received the case papers on 4 November 1994 and indicated that an
Inquest would be held on 4 January 1995. The appellant applied successfully
2
for an adjournment so that the DPP could reconsider his decision not to
prosecute. On 10 February 1995 after re-consideration of his decision the DPP
issued a further direction that there was to be no prosecution. On 11 April
1995 the Coroner indicated that the Inquest would be resumed on 12 June
1995.
[3] The appellant commenced Judicial Review proceedings in respect of
rulings of the Coroner on 26 May 1995. Judgment at first instance in these
proceedings was given on 11 December 1995. The appellant appealed
unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal which gave judgment in June 1996.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused by the House of Lords on
20 March 1997. The Inquest which had been adjourned pending the outcome
of the application for leave to appeal was listed by the Coroner for hearing on
1 December 1997 but was adjourned again on the application of the appellant
as judicial review proceedings were outstanding in respect of the availability
of Legal Aid for Inquests.
[4] On 1 July 1999 the Coroner listed the Inquest for hearing on 1
November 1999 but again adjourned the hearing on the appellant’s
application, pending further judicial review proceedings against the Chief
Constable in respect of disclosure of documents. In October 2000 the Chief
Constable agreed to provide full disclosure. On 21 December 2000 the
Coroner decided that a full preliminary hearing would be held on 31 January
2001 but adjourned it.
[5] Further judicial reviews were brought on behalf of the appellant
against the Coroner and the Chief Constable.
[6] An application had been made by the appellant to the European Court
of Human Rights (the ECtHR) on the grounds of breach of Article 2 of the
Convention on 13 May 1994. On 4 April 2001 the Coroner adjourned the
Inquest which had been listed for 19 April 2001 pending the decision of the
ECtHR in Jordan & Ors v UK which was delivered on 4 May 2001. The
European Court held that the United Kingdom was in breach of Article 2 in
Jordan v UK.
[7] Following the decision of the ECtHR the Coroner proposed to hold a
pre-inquest hearing on 7 June 2001. This was adjourned for a significant
period on the application of the Lord Chancellor. On 9 January 2002 it was
indicated to the Coroner on behalf of the Lord Chancellor that it was
proposed to amend Rule 9(2) of the Coroner’s (Practice and Procedure) Rules
(Northern Ireland) 1963 to remove the exemption from compellability of
persons suspected of causing the death of the deceased. The Coroner was
also referred by counsel, inter alia, to the decision of the Administrative Court
in R v West Somerset Coroner, ex parte Middleton (hereafter referred to as
Middleton). He ruled that in view of this decision he would hold the inquest
3
on 5 February 2002 on the basis of existing Coroner’s law and practice and, if
Rule 9(2) was repealed before the inquest began, he would issue a witness
summons for Sergeant A. The Lord Chancellor amended Rule 9 on 8
February 2002 in accord with his indication to the Coroner. The amendment
came into operation on 11 February 2002.
[8] Two further judicial reviews were brought on behalf of the appellant
which led to these appeals. Another judicial review was also brought by the
appellant. This related to the decisions of the DPP not to give reasons for
directing no prosecution of Sergeant A. It was appealed. An appellate
Committee rejected an application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords
on 22 June 2004.
[9] I recite this litany in order to show that the Coroner has done
everything in his power to hold an Inquest. It was ultimately deferred until
the House of Lords gave judgment in Middleton. As the deceased in Middleton
had died before 2 October 2000 it was believe that comprehensive guidance
would be given to the Coroner. At this stage there were also outstanding
these appeals and the third appeal which was completed on 22 June 2004. A
chronology setting out what occurred since the death of Pearse Jordan, as
seen from the perspective of his father and his lawyers, can be found at pp 1-6
of the appellant’s `List of Authorities’.
The scope of a Coroner’s inquest before the decision in Middleton
[10] The leading case in England and Wales on the scope of a Coroner’s
inquest before Middleton was the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v HM
Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1.
Judgment was delivered on 25 April 1994. The headnote reads in part:-
“Held, (1) that an inquest was a fact finding inquiry
directed solely to establishing the identity of the
deceased and how, when and where he came by
his death; that `how’ within the meaning of section
11(5)(b)(ii) and rule 36(1)(b) connoted `by what
means’ not `in what broad circumstances’ the
deceased came by his death; that, applying rule 42
it was not for the coroner or his jury to determine
any question of civil or criminal liability, or to
appear to do so, or to impute blame; that lack of
care, which was more appropriately described as
`neglect’, was the obverse of self-neglect, and
connoted a gross failure to provide adequate
sustenance or medical attention whether for a
person in a position of dependency, whether by
reason of a mental or physical condition; that
To continue reading
Request your trial