Jordan, Re Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

On 25 November 1992, the deceased was shot and killed by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the Falls Road, Belfast. An inquest into the death commenced on 24 September 2012 before the Coroner, sitting with a jury, and concluded on 26 October 2012. The jury was unable to reach unanimous verdicts on several questions posed by the Coroner. The deceased's father ("the applicant") initiated four judicial review applications challenging decisions made by the Coroner and the Police Service of Northern Ireland ("the PSNI") before and during the inquest. A conjoined hearing on 31 January 2014 resulted in three of these applications being granted and the inquest verdict quashed by the trial judge. Both the Coroner and the PSNI appealed this decision, and the applicant filed a cross appeal. The applicant raised a preliminary objection that the Coroner should not participate as an adversarial party nor be permitted to appeal. The court heard detailed submissions from counsel representing all parties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether it was appropriate for the Coroner to participate as an adversarial party in judicial review proceedings concerning the inquest.
2. Whether the Coroner should be permitted to bring an appeal against the judicial review decisions quashing the inquest verdict.
3. Whether the Coroner erred in decisions relating to disclosure of certain reports and statements, jury management, and acceptance of the jury verdict during the inquest.
4. Whether the PSNI erred in refusing disclosure of statements and breached procedural rights by causing unreasonable delay in the inquest.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Coroner, as an inquisitorial figure, should not act as an adversarial party in judicial review proceedings, especially in appeals.
• Based on the precedent in Re Darley's Application, the proper party to contest judicial review appeals is normally the opposing party, not the tribunal or coroner itself.
• The police and the next of kin were the opposing parties in the inquest, so it should be for the PSNI, not the Coroner, to pursue appeals.
• The Coroner's decision to appeal was taken unilaterally without consultation with other coroners, potentially creating a perception of personal interest rather than institutional impartiality.
• Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Re Reilly and others, procedural fairness requires the Coroner to be impartial and not appear biased by participating adversarially.

Respondent's (Coroner and PSNI) Arguments

• The Coroner was not defending one party against another but was addressing issues arising from an inquisitorial inquest, where Re Darley has limited application.
• There is established precedent for coroners appealing adverse judicial review decisions, including cases where no opposing party exists, to clarify points of law or principle (ex parte Worch, R (Touche) v Inner London Coroner).
• The case R(Sacker) v West Yorkshire Coroner supports the coroner’s right to appeal and participate in judicial review proceedings.
• R v Coroner for Lincoln ex parte Hay illustrates the range of options available to a coroner in adversarial proceedings, including active participation at risk of costs orders.
• The Coroner has actively participated in the proceedings and faces an adverse costs order which he seeks to challenge on appeal.
• The PSNI is prepared to take the lead on several grounds of appeal, with the Coroner reserving the right to raise other matters.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re Darley's Application [1997] NI 384	Proper party to contest judicial review appeals is normally the opposing party, not the tribunal itself.	The court acknowledged the principle but distinguished the inquisitorial nature of coronial proceedings and allowed the Coroner discretion to participate.
Re Reilly and others [2013] 3 WLR 1020	Procedural fairness requires decision-makers to be independent and impartial, and to appear so.	The court considered this in relation to the Coroner's role and concluded that participation in appeals does not necessarily compromise impartiality.
ex parte Worch [1988] 1 QB 513	Coroner's right to appeal decisions in absence of opposing parties to establish points of principle.	Supported the Coroner's ability to participate in adversarial proceedings when no opposing party exists.
R (Touche) v Inner London Coroner [2001] QB 1206	Options for coroner participation in judicial review proceedings range from non-participation to active adversarial involvement.	Confirmed the Coroner's discretion to participate and risk costs orders.
R(Sacker) v West Yorkshire Coroner [2004] 1 WLR 796	Coroner's right to appeal judicial review decisions concerning inquest rulings.	Upheld the coroner's appeal rights, with no criticism of his decision to appeal.
R v Coroner for Lincoln ex parte Hay [2000] Lloyds Rep Med 264	Coroner's options in adversarial judicial review proceedings and the risk of costs orders.	Supported the court's view that the Coroner should assist the court and avoid adversarial participation where possible.
Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 359	Test for apparent bias: whether a fair-minded observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias.	The court applied this test to coroners, concluding no apparent bias arises from the Coroner’s participation in appeals.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the inquisitorial nature of inquest proceedings and the Coroner's role as an independent judicial officer who must act impartially. It acknowledged the supervisory jurisdiction of the Divisional Court exercised through judicial review proceedings, which are adversarial. The court identified a tension between the Coroner’s inquisitorial role and participation as an adversarial party in judicial review appeals. While the applicant argued the Coroner should be prohibited from adversarial involvement to avoid any perception of bias, the court rejected this, emphasizing that the decision to participate and the manner of participation must rest with the Coroner. The court noted precedents where coroners have appealed decisions and participated actively, sometimes at risk of costs orders. It emphasized that where a perception of bias arises or justice requires, the court can direct that another coroner conduct the proceedings to preserve impartiality. The court also highlighted procedural mechanisms, such as case stated procedures, that could reduce adversarial involvement by coroners. Ultimately, the court found no inconsistency between the applicant's submissions and established case law, particularly distinguishing the inquisitorial context from the adversarial context of industrial tribunals. The court concluded that the Coroner’s unilateral decision to appeal was appropriate and necessary to vindicate his rulings and that it would be inappropriate for the Coroner's Service or others to make such decisions.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the application to strike out the Coroner's appeal or to prevent the Coroner from participating in the proceedings as he deems appropriate. The Coroner is entitled to decide on participation and grounds of appeal. The court noted the Coroner’s willingness to have certain grounds of appeal dealt with by the PSNI, which the PSNI has agreed to lead on, facilitating efficient management of the appeals. The decision preserves the Coroner’s access to appellate courts and maintains the independence and impartiality of coronial proceedings by allowing court directions where necessary. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the Coroner’s discretion to participate in judicial review appeals arising from inquest proceedings.