Officers C,D,H and R’s Application - Officer A’s application - Jordan’s (Hugh) Application

JurisdictionNorthern Ireland
JudgeDeeny J
Judgment Date2012
Neutral Citation[2012] NIQB 62
Date18 September 2012
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
1
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIQB 62 Ref:
DEE8576
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
17+18/9/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
Officers C,D,H and R’s Application [2012] NIQB 62
Officer A’s application [2012] NIQB 62
Jordan’s Application [2012] NIQB 62
2012 No. 3812/01
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY
OFFICERS C, D, H and R, SERVING AND RETIRED
MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY
AND THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND
FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
2012 No.
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 AND Q FORMER OFFICERS OF THE
ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY
(Anonymity and Screening).
_________
DEENY J
SECTION I Preliminary
2
[1] Hugh Jordan is the father and next of kin of Patrick Pearse Jordan who was
shot dead by a police officer in 1992. These applications relate to twelve serving or
former police officers due to give evidence at the inquest into his death. No criminal
proceedings resulted in respect of his death. An inquest into his death commenced
on 4 January 1995 but was adjourned repeatedly over a number of years pending the
resolution of legal proceedings. In 2001 the European Court of Human Rights
concluded that the inquest procedure, in particular by the restrictions on any
findings of criminal liability under the Coroner’s Act (NI) 1959 and the Rules
thereunder failed to give effect to the procedural investigative duty under Article 2
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Thereafter the Coroner attempted to resume the inquest in accordance with existing
provisions. However, further judicial review proceedings followed in which Mr
Jordan challenged, inter alia, the Coroner’s decision that a verdict of unlawful killing
would not be available to the jury whose determination would be confined to a brief
neutral statement. That claim was refused at first instance. On appeal the Court of
Appeal in Northern Ireland concluded that the Act and Rules interpreted as
meaning that the jury should find “by what means and in what circumstances” the
deceased came to his death were sufficient without a verdict of unlawful or lawful
killing. An appeal from that decision was dismissed by the House of Lords in
Jordan v Lord Chancellor and Another [2007] 2 AC 226 where it was held that there
was no prohibition on the jury finding facts directly relevant to the cause of death
which might point to the existence of criminal liability and where their findings
indicated the commission of a crime or the Coroner considered that an offence might
have been committed, he would be obliged to report that matter to the relevant
prosecuting authority, but, by a majority, a verdict of unlawful or lawful killing or
an expression of opinion on criminal or civil liability was not open to the jury. It was
further held that the police were under a continuing duty to supply information to
the Coroner.
In Re Brigid McCaughey & Anor for Judicial Review [2012] 1 AC 725; [2011] UKSC
20 the Supreme Court, following the decision of the Grand Chamber of the European
Court of Human Rights in Silih v Slovenia (2009) 49 EHRR 996, found, in the words
of Lady Hale:
“if there is now to be an inquiry into a death for which
the State may bear some responsibility under Article 2, it
should be conducted in an Article 2 compliant way.”
[2] Subsequent to Jordan the Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland attempted to
resume the inquest. There were a series of preliminary hearings and at a number of
these the anonymity of police and former police witnesses was discussed. The
Senior Coroner adopted a procedure but it was the subject of a judicial review
challenge which was conceded by the Senior Coroner in February 2009. As appears
from the affidavit of Fearghal Shiels, solicitor for the applicant Mr Jordan at
paragraph 8:
3
“A new Anonymity Protocol (sic) was put in place to
govern all Inquests, a copy of the Protocol, is attached
and exhibited as FS1 Tab 1 pages 1-5. As appears the
Protocol permits that any party opposed to a provisional
decision can make written representations outlining their
grounds for opposition and thereafter an oral hearing is
held before a final decision is reached.”
The conduct of the inquest in October 2009 was transferred to Mr Coroner Sherrard
and a slightly different version of the Anonymity and Screening Procedure, as it is
called, is exhibited to the papers in these proceedings dating from November 2009.
Various further delays regrettably then occurred into which I need not go. Suffice it
to say that the Procedure was operated by the Coroner. That involved him making
provisional decisions which were disclosed to what for convenience I will call the
parties. They were then given the opportunity to make further submissions and on
29 June he made a series of rulings. C, D, H and R were all refused anonymity.
Since then A, the sergeant of police who actually shot the deceased has also been
refused anonymity. They challenge the Coroners rulings in two of these
applications. Mr Jordan, or his legal representatives, bring their application before
the court to challenge the grant of anonymity to officers AA, AB (currently
provisional), B, E, F and M granted on 29 June. I gave them leave to amend their
Order 53 statement by adding Q to whom anonymity was granted over the summer.
Following this decision of 29 June both the officers who were not getting anonymity
and Mr Jordan challenged the Coroner’s decision. An Order of Gillen J of the 4th
day of July gave directions for the exchange of skeleton arguments and affidavits.
As the inquest was finally listed for commencement on 12 September 2012 I agreed
to sit in the vacation on 28 August to hear the matter in the hope of providing a
judgment which would allow the inquest to proceed.
[3] Ms Karen Quinlivan Q.C. appeared with Ms Fiona Doherty for the next of kin
(although Ms Doherty does not appear in the substantive inquest). Mr Turlough
Montague QC appeared with Dr Tony McGleenan QC for the Chief Constable and
for AA and AB. Mr Kevin O’Hare appeared with Mr David Scoffield QC for
Officers (or ex-Officers) A, C, D, H, R as applicants and B, E, F, M and Q as Notice
Parties. Professor Sean Doran appeared for the Coroner. I am grateful to counsel for
the written and oral submissions which they delivered. These have been considered
and taken into account even if all are not expressly referred to in this judgment.
[4] At the request of counsel and with the agreement of all parties I agreed that
the hearing on Tuesday 28th would deal with two preliminary points which had
emerged. The first of these was the submission on behalf of Mr Jordan that I should
not look at the unredacted material which the Coroner had seen when arriving at his
decisions. In the event counsel for the other three parties were content to let me
conduct the judicial review without looking at the unredacted material. It was the
submission of the next of kin that if I did so they would be entitled to see it. Counsel
did say that of course if I felt the necessity to do so in the course of the hearing the

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Jordan’s Applications
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • January 31, 2014
    ...who challenged the Coroner's decision to grant anonymity. Deeny J gave an extensive judgment on 17 and 18 September 2012 under citation [2012] NIQB 62. Officer AA was one of the officers to whom anonymity had been granted by the Coroner and accordingly during the course of Hugh Jordan's app......
  • In the matter of an inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan - full judgment
    • United Kingdom
    • Coroners Court (NI)
    • November 7, 2016
    ...of the decisions to grant anonymity and screening: see Officer C, D, H and R’s Application; Officer A’s Application; Jordan’s Application [2012] NIQB 62 (Deeny J). [96] The decision of the High Court - Deeny J had granted anonymity and screening to a number of officers who had been refused ......
  • In the matter of an inquest into the death of Patrick Pearse Jordan
    • United Kingdom
    • Coroners Court (NI)
    • November 7, 2016
    ...of the decisions to grant anonymity and screening: see Officer C, D, H and R’s Application; Officer A’s Application; Jordan’s Application [2012] NIQB 62 (Deeny J). [96] The decision of the High Court - Deeny J had granted anonymity and screening to a number of officers who had been refused ......
  • Jordan’s (Hugh) Application and in the matter of a decision taken by the Coroner of Northern Ireland
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • September 26, 2012
    ...at the inquest. See my comments on the limits of cross-examination as to credit in Re C, D, H and R, and Jordan (Anonymity and Screening)[2012] NIQB 62 at [27] – [30]. The Coroner indicated on 12 June that he had asked the Senior Coroner to rule on this issue. He on the same date wrote that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT