McLuckie (Duncan) v Coroner for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Higgins LJ |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NICA 34 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 10 June 2011 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NICA 34 Ref:
HIG8192
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10/6/2011
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
__________
DUNCAN McLUCKIE
Appellant;
-and-
THE CORONER FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Respondent.
________
Before: Higgins LJ, Girvan LJ and Sir John Sheil
_________
Higgins LJ (giving the judgment of the Court)
[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Treacy J dismissing the
appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Coroner, Mr J
Leckey (the Coroner), whereby he refused the appellant’s application for an
order under Section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 postponing
media reporting of inquest proceedings before the Coroner.
[2] The appellant is a former member of the Royal Signals. In May 1972 he
was a Signalman on a tour of duty with his regiment in Northern Ireland,
based at 3 Brigade Headquarters in Lurgan. On 17 May 1972 he was part of a
group of regular soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment
(UDR) engaged in an exercise involving a simulated terrorist attack. As the
exercise was taking place near the border the soldiers were issued with live
rounds in addition to the blank rounds to be used in the exercise. No Blank
Firing Attachments were issued. These attachments prevent a live round
exiting the barrel of a rifle, if the rifle is fired with live rounds loaded. In the
course of the exercise the appellant fired a live round which struck WO II
Bernard Adamson of the UDR (the deceased, otherwise referred to as
Company Sergeant Major or Sergeant Major Adamson). The deceased was
struck in the hand but the round passed through his hand and into the lower
chest causing serious internal injuries from which he later died in hospital.
Police and military investigations commenced. The appellant has maintained
that he never intended to fire a live round at the deceased. No criminal
2
charges were brought against the appellant but he was convicted of negligent
handling of a weapon contrary to Section 69 of the Army Act 1955 and fined.
An Inquest was conducted in Belfast on 18 December 1972 and the jury
returned an ‘Open’ verdict.
[3] On 7 November 2007 the Attorney General, following application by
the family of the deceased, exercised her powers under Section 14 of the
Coroner’s Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and ordered an Inquest to be
conducted into the death of the deceased. This decision was communicated to
the Coroner on the same date who subsequently directed enquiries and
documents. It is important to note that no reason was given by the Attorney
General for this decision nor has one emerged since her decision.
[4] On 28 September 2008 an Acting Detective Inspector of the Police
Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) sent a report to the Coroner accompanied
by statements, together with the original police and military reports and
statements. The PSNI Report identified various witnesses who were at the
scene of the exercise in May 1972 and indicated whether they were still alive
and their availability to attend the Inquest. The appellant is referred to at
page 4 with the comment –
“Currently serving Life Sentence at HMP Frankland
for unrelated offence. Has to date refused to co-
operate with Police (Copy statements RUC/RMP
available).”
[5] The statement that the appellant had refused to co-operate is quite
inaccurate. On 20 May 2008 officers of the PSNI arrived at HMP Frankland,
apparently without notice, and requested to speak to the appellant. A Senior
Prison Officer spoke to the appellant in the presence of a Deputy Governor
and informed him that representatives of the Northern Ireland Coroner’s
Office (in fact PSNI officers) had requested to speak to him about various
matters. The appellant refused to speak to them ‘due to lack of legal
representation’. In a handwritten document signed by the appellant the PSNI
officers were asked to ‘please contact’ his solicitors whose name and address
and telephone numbers (office and mobile) were written on the document.
Far from being unco-operative the appellant was facilitating a future
meeting.
[6] A Preliminary Hearing took place before the Coroner in September or
October 2009. The appellant was neither present nor represented. In all
probability he was not notified of this hearing. It is clear that it was disclosed
in open court that the appellant was serving a life sentence for murder and
that he was refusing to co-operate with the Coroner. These statements
emanated from the Report to the Coroner referred to above. Counsel on
To continue reading
Request your trial
15 cases
-
McQuillan's (Margaret) Application
...avoids the dangers of satellite litigation. This court has highlighted those dangers in relation to inquests in McLuckie’s Application [2011] NICA 34 at paragraph 26 and in Re C & Ors [2012] NICA 47. The issue of satellite litigation was also considered in McCaughey’s (Brigid) Application [......
-
McVeigh’s (Sean) Application
...to the application of that principle to inquests quoting from the judgment of Higgins LJ in McLuckie v The Coroner for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 34 at paragraph [26] and, having done so, he continued his judgment at paragraph [18] in the following terms: “I accept that there can be excep......
-
VOM (Error of law - when appealable) Nigeria
...review challenges to aspects of inquest proceedings pursued at a stage when the process is not complete. See in particular McLuckie v Coroner for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 34, at [26]. 21 This feature of contemporary litigation may be viewed as the up-to-date application of the venerable......
-
Darkwah Awuah, SJ, TN and Khadija Musu Momoh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of inquest proceedings pursued at a stage when the process is not complete. See in particularMcLuckie v Coroner for Northern Ireland [2011] NICA 34, at [26].” 11 The correct answer to the first question is also informed by an array of statutory provisions. While section 29 of the 2007 Act p......
Request a trial to view additional results