Jordan’s Applications
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] NIQB 11 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Docket Number | STE9005 |
| Date | 31 January 2014 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2014] NIQB 11
Ref:
STE9005
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered: 31/01/2014
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Jordan’s Applications (13/002996/1), (13/002223/1) (13/037869/1) [2014] NIQB 11
IN THE MATTER OF THREE APPLICATIONS BY HUGH JORDAN FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
________
STEPHENS J
Part One: Introduction
The applications
[1] The evidence at the inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan, (“the
deceased”) was heard before the Coroner, Mr Sherrard with a jury between
24 September 2012 and 26 October 2012 (2/1).
[2] This judgment is in respect of three applications for judicial review brought
by Hugh Jordan, the father of the deceased.
[3] The first application (13/002996/1) is for judicial review of various rulings of
the Coroner. In that application the Coroner is the respondent and the Police Service
of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) is a notice party. One of the applicant’s grounds of
challenge includes the contention that the anonymity afforded to jurors and the
requirement for a unanimous jury verdict, are incompatible with the applicant’s
article 2 rights and that section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required the Coroner
not to apply section 31 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 which requires
that the jurors are unanimous but rather to accept a majority verdict. The applicant
also seeks a declaration that section 31(1) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland)
1959 and article 26 of the Juries (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (as amended by
section 10 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007) are incompatible
2
with the applicant’s Article 2 rights. A notice pursuant to Order 121, rule 3A of the
Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980 was served on the Department of Justice
for Northern Ireland and the Department responded by notice seeking to be joined
as a party to the proceedings.
[4] The first application (13/002996/1) is based on 38 grounds specified in the
amended Order 53 statement. The grounds encompass the following issues:
(i) Non-disclosure of the Stalker/Sampson reports
(1/2/8/i-ix).
(ii) Non-disclosure of underlying material from a
Police Ombudsman’s investigation into the
death of Neil McConville in 2003 (1/2/11-
12/x-xii).
(iii) The Coroner’s decision to sit with a jury
(1/2/12/xiii-xiv).
(iv) The Coroner’s decision not to discharge a
particular juror (1/2/12-13/xv-xvi).
(v) The manner in which the Coroner framed the
questions which were posed to the jury
(1/2/13/xviii-xix).
(vi) The content of the Coroner’s directions to the
jury (1/2/13-14/xix-xx).
(vii) The decision by the Coroner to accept the
verdict of the jury (1/2/14/xxi-xxiii).
(viii) The Coroner’s decisions on the anonymity of
and on the screening of witnesses (1/2/15-
16C/xxiv-xxxvii).
(ix) The response of the Coroner to the
involvement of former RUC Special Branch
Officers in the disclosure process
(1/2/16c/xxxviii).
[5] In relation to the challenge to decisions on anonymity and screening of
witnesses which are contained in paragraphs (xxiv) to (xxxvii) of the applicant’s
amended Order 53 statement it was conceded by Ms Quinlivan that this court was
3
bound to find against the applicant in relation to grounds (xxiv) and (xxv) by virtue
of the decision of the Court of Appeal In the matter of an application by Officers C, D, H
& R [2012] NICA 47; the Supreme Court having refused to grant leave to appeal.
[6] In the second application (13/002223/1) the first ground of challenge relates to
a decision of the PSNI refusing to disclose to the applicant two statements made by
Officer AA to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland relating to her
investigation into the death of Neil McConville, which statements were given by the
Chief Constable to the Coroner. The applicant contends in this judicial review
application that he had a legitimate expectation that “all documents” disclosed by
the Chief Constable to the Coroner, whether relevant or irrelevant to the issues in the
inquest, except for any document which is subject to legal professional privilege or
to a valid public interest immunity claim, would also be disclosed to him by the
PSNI (9/2/3-4/i-v). The applicant seeks an order of mandamus compelling the
PSNI to provide the applicant with disclosure of the two statements (9/2/3/iv).
This ground of challenge closely relates to the ground of challenge in the first
judicial review application in which the applicant challenges the decision of the
Coroner not to disclose these two statements to him on the basis that the Coroner has
an obligation to disclose potentially relevant documents to the next of kin and that
these documents were potentially relevant. It also closely relates to the ground of
challenge that the failure to disclose the documents breached article 2 inasmuch as
the next of kin were prevented from participating in the inquest to the extent
necessary to protect their legitimate interests (1/2/11/x-xii). I will deal with these
issues together in part five of this judgment.
[7] The second ground of challenge relates to the involvement of RUC Special
Branch Officers and a former RUC intelligence Officer in the process of complying
with the Chief Constable’s obligations under Section 8 of the Coroners Act (Northern
Ireland) 1959 (9/2/5/vi-vii). The applicant seeks a declaration that this involvement
compromised the independence of the disclosure process and meant that the inquest
was not compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (9/2/3/v). This ground of challenge
closely relates to the ground of challenge in the first judicial review application in
which the applicant challenges the role of the Coroner in that it is contended that he
should have concluded that the involvement of RUC Special Branch Officers in the
disclosure process compromised the independence of his enquiry and that he should
have directed the Chief Constable to utilise different personnel. That the Coroner
bears ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the conduct of the inquest over
which he presides and it is contended that he failed to take any or any adequate
steps to ensure that the independence of the disclosure process was not
compromised by the Chief Constable (1/2/16C/xxxviii). I will deal with these
issues together in part six of this judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial
42 cases
- An application by Rosaleen Dalton for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)
-
Hutchings' (Dennis) Application
...question of jury bias an analysis of Jordan’s cases was properly considered by the Director (the judgment of Stephens J, as he then was, [2014] NIQB 11 and the decision of the Court of Appeal at [2014] NICA 76). [52] The Jordan circumstances surrounded an inquest into the death of Mr Jordan......
-
Re Jordan's Application for Judicial Review
...review of the conduct of the inquest, which resulted in the verdict being quashed: In re Jordan's application for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 11. A subsequent appeal against that decision was dismissed: [2014] NICA 76. 4 In 2013 Hugh Jordan brought the present proceedings for judicial rev......
-
Arthurs (Patrick) as personal representative of Declan Arthurs (deceased) v Ministry of Defence and Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...of effective official investigation (McCann v United Kingdom). In The Matter Of Three Applications By Hugh Jordan For Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 11 Stephens J summarised the nature of an Article 2 compliant investigation which had been considered by the Strasbourg Court in Jordan v UK (200......
Request a trial to view additional results