Officers C, D, H and R’s Application - Officer A’s application - Jordan’s (Hugh) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Morgan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NICA 47 |
| Year | 2012 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 17 October 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2012] NICA 47
Ref:
MOR8620
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
Delivered:
17/10/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OFFICERS C, D, H & R
SERVING AND RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL ULSTER
CONSTABULARY AND THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OFFICER A FOR LEAVE TO
APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BOTH IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS OF THE
CORONER FOR BELFAST IN THE INQUEST TOUCHING ON THE DEATH OF
PATRICK PEARSE JORDAN
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY HUGH JORDAN FOR
LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE
CORONER IN RESPECT OF AA, AB, B, E, F, M & Q FORMER OFFICERS OF
THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY
________
MORGAN LCJ
[1] These 2 appeals arise out of rulings by the Coroner on procedural issues in
relation to an inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan who was shot dead by a
police officer at Falls Road Belfast on 25 November 1992. The areas which the jury
will be asked to address include the circumstances in which the fatal shot was fired
by the relevant police officer, Sergeant A, the manner in which the police operation
was planned and controlled so as to minimise the risk of the use of lethal force, the
extent to which the arrangements for debriefing may have prevented individual
officers from providing their independent accounts of what occurred and whether
that prevented the truth about the incident emerging.
[2] The Coroner intends to call a number of serving and retired police officers.
Those officers sought anonymity and screening to protect them against the risk to
their lives if they were identified at the inquest as persons involved in the death of
Mr Jordan. In a series of Rulings commencing in June 2012 the Coroner decided that
in some cases the degree of risk was sufficient to engage the threshold established by
2
Article 2 of the ECHR requiring the State to consider positive action to protect the
individual. In those cases he ordered anonymity and screening of the witnesses. He
also found that in those cases the common law fairness test for the provision of
protective measures because of a risk to life was met and on that ground also
justified the making of the Orders. He also made similar Orders in relation to two
police officers in respect of whom the risk did not reach the Article 2 threshold but
for medical reasons the Coroner concluded that the common law test for the
provision of anonymity and screening was met. The deceased’s father, Hugh Jordan,
issued judicial review proceedings to challenge those Rulings on 11 July 2012 and
that application was dismissed by Deeny J on 17 September 2012.
[3] A number of the serving and retired police officers who were not successful in
their applications also sought judicial review of the Coroner’s decision. Those
applications succeeded before Deeny J and he made Orders on 18 September 2012
granting anonymity and screening several cases and remitting other cases for
determination by the Coroner in accordance with the law as set out in the judgment.
The Coroner has now dealt with those cases. The jury for the inquest was sworn on
24 and 25 September and the inquest is now proceeding.
The appeal of Mr Jordan
[4] The coroner granted anonymity and screening to Officers AA, AB, B, E, F, M
and Q. The next –of- kin opposed all of these with the exception of anonymity for
AA. This was an issue which had been the subject of considerable debate at
preliminary hearings before the Coroner and a Protocol which was accepted by all of
those participating in the inquest was circulated initially in June 2009. The relevant
procedure is:-
(i) A risk assessment in relation to any applicant for anonymity or screening is to
be provided by the Security Service;
(ii) A written statement of the grounds of the application is to be provided by the
applicant;
(iii) A redacted copy of the written statement is to be prepared by the applicant
for transmission to other parties to the inquest;
(iv) Where the Coroner concludes that any redaction is unnecessary he can
require a revised copy to be prepared after hearing representations from the
applicant for anonymity;
(v) Where he is minded to grant the application in whole or in part the Coroner is
required to ensure that his Provisional Decision with reasons is made
available to interested parties;
To continue reading
Request your trial
46 cases
-
McQuillan's (Margaret) Application
...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 [2012] NIQB 20, O’Connor & Broderick’s Application......
-
McVeigh’s (Sean) Application
...aspect of the general public interest principle and, as such, it has been recently considered in this court in the case of Re Officer C [2013] NI 221 which concerned applications for judicial review of rulings by the coroner in the Jordan inquest conferring anonymity upon certain police wit......
-
Bassalat's (Issam) Application (Leave stage) and in the matter of decisions of The Public Prosecution Service and District Judge (Magistrates Courts) Ranaghan
...in coronial law provides a template for good practice. This was emphasised in para [16] of An Application by Officers C, D, H & R [2012] NICA 47 where the Court of Appeal stated: “[16] The overriding objective in Rule 1A of the Rules of the Court of Judicature requires the court to deal wit......
-
Jordan’s Applications
... ... 11 IN THE MATTER OF THREE APPLICATIONS BY HUGH JORDAN FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ________ STEPHENS J ... [3] The first application (13/002996/1) is for judicial review of various ... of former RUC Special Branch Officers in the disclosure process (1/2/16c/xxxviii). [5] ... to the applicant two statements made by Officer AA to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results