Re Jordan's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 2008 |
| Date | 15 December 2008 |
| Court | High Court (Northern Ireland) |
Court and Reference: High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland, STE7352
: Stevens J
Appearances:K Quinlivan for the applicant; T McGleenan for the respondent; Mr Daly for the coroner.
: Whether, where police were implicated in a death, there was a legitimate expectation that the Chief Constable would disclose to interested parties all documents submitted to the coroner, including those which the coroner did not deem relevant to the issues to be explored at the inquest.
: The applicant's son had been shot by a police officer. An inquest had been commenced in 1995 but following numerous legal challenges (Jordan v UK [2001] Inquest Law Reports 101, Jordan v Lord Chancellor [2007] Inquest Law Reports 44), it had been determined that a new inquest should be held. For the purposes of the new inquest the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland had disclosed a number of documents to the coroner. Under s. 8 Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, the coroner was to decide on the relevance of any document to the issues in the inquest and would make only relevant documents available to the next of kin. The Chief Constable declined to disclose to the applicant all the documents that he had disclosed to the coroner. The applicant submitted that he had a legitimate expectation that all documents (save for those subject to legal professional privilege and public interest immunity) should be disclosed to him irrespective of whether they were relevant or irrelevant to the issues to be explored at the inquest.
Introduction
1. Patrick Pearse Jordan was shot dead at Falls Road, Belfast on 25 November 1992 as a result of a bullet apparently fired by a police officer. An inquest into his death was opened in 1995. Evidence was given on 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 January 1995. The inquest was then adjourned and subsequently a decision was made that it should recommence from the start. There have been numerous legal challenges in connection with holding the inquest which is now fixed for hearing on 14 January 2009.
2. This is an application by Hugh Jordan, the father and next of kin of Patrick Pearse Jordan, for judicial review in respect of a decision by the Chief Constable not to disclose to the applicant all documents disclosed by the Chief Constable to the coroner except for any document which is subject to legal professional privilege or to a valid public interest immunity claim. The Chief Constable has an obligation to furnish to the coroner such documents as he then has or is thereafter able to obtain (subject to any relevant privilege or immunity) concerning the finding of the body or concerning the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan. Thereafter the coroner decides on the relevance of any document to the issues which can be expected to emerge on the hearing of the inquest. The coroner then makes available to the next of kin only the relevant documents. The applicant bases these judicial review proceedings on the contention that, irrespective of the position in other cases, he has a legitimate expectation that "all documents" (subject to privilege and immunity) should be disclosed to him irrespective of whether relevant or irrelevant to the issues expected to emerge on the hearing of the inquest. It could be said that this judicial review application relates to "non sensitive" documents which are "perceived" to be irrelevant as the "non sensitive" relevant documents will be made available to the applicant in any event by the coroner. The applicant seeks an order of mandamus and if such an order is granted then the Chief Constable would be required to disclose to the next of kin all such documents irrespective as to whether they were relevant or irrelevant to the issues which can be expected to emerge on the hearing of the inquest.
3. Ms Karen Quinlivan appeared on behalf of the applicant, Mr McGleenan appeared on behalf of the respondent. Mr Daly appeared on behalf of the coroner. I am grateful to counsel for their succinct written and oral submissions.
4. I heard and granted the application for leave on Friday 5 December 2008. Thereafter I gave directions and in view of the impending date for the hearing of the inquest I expedited the substantive hearing which was held on Friday 12 December 2008.
5. There was no disagreement in relation to any of the applicable legal principles.
The factual background
6. Home Office circular dated 28 April 1999 and numbered 20/1999 ("the circular") provided guidance to Chief Officers of Police (England and Wales). The circular advised Chief Officers, where there has been a death in police custody, to make arrangements, with immediate effect, for the pre-inquest disclosure of documentary evidence to interested persons. I set out some of that guidance as follows:-
"4. disclosure of information held by the authorities in advance of the hearing should help to provide reassurance to the family of the deceased and other interested persons that a full and open police investigation has been conducted, and that they and their legal representatives will not be disadvantaged at the inquest
5. Chief Officers are advised, therefore, that there should be as great a degree of openness as possible, and that disclosure of documentary material to interested persons before the inquest hearing should be normal practice in the cases described in para 6 below. In all cases Chief Officers will want to consider whether there are compelling...
To continue reading
Request your trial