Jordan, Re Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

Pearse Jordan was shot dead by a police officer, referred to as Sergeant A, in The City on 25 November 1992. The inquest into his death was scheduled for 4 January 2010. The present application is brought by the Plaintiff, the father of Pearse Jordan, seeking the removal of the Senior Coroner from hearing the inquest. The grounds for removal are allegations of both apparent and substantive bias, particularly concerning the Senior Coroner’s conduct in relation to applications for anonymity and screening of police witnesses, and an alleged predisposition towards predetermined outcomes.

The inquest has been subject to significant delay and a complex procedural history involving multiple judicial reviews brought by both the Plaintiff and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The Plaintiff’s application is the sixth judicial review concerning this inquest within a recent year. The procedural history includes a successful application by the Plaintiff to the European Court of Human Rights against the United Kingdom, as well as appeals to the House of Lords.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Senior Coroner has displayed apparent or substantive bias in relation to his conduct of the inquest.
2. Whether the Senior Coroner has predetermined outcomes concerning applications for anonymity and screening of witnesses.
3. Whether the Senior Coroner’s handling of the investigating officer’s report and disclosure obligations was proper and free from bias.
4. Whether the Senior Coroner’s decisions regarding issuance of a witness summons for Sergeant A were biased or improper.
5. Whether delays in the inquest proceedings are attributable to the Senior Coroner and whether such delays indicate bias.
6. Whether the Senior Coroner’s approach to private representations and disclosure oversight demonstrates bias or procedural unfairness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Senior Coroner has exhibited bias by showing double standards in handling requests for access to forensic notes, rebuking the Plaintiff’s legal representatives while tolerating police actions in relation to the same material.
• The Senior Coroner delayed obtaining and disclosing the full investigating officer’s report, contributing to inquest delays and demonstrating deference to the Chief Constable.
• The procedure adopted by the Senior Coroner for applications for anonymity and screening was unfair, caused delay, and revealed a predisposition to grant such applications.
• The Senior Coroner refused to issue a witness summons for Sergeant A, showing undue deference to security forces and disregarding submissions by the Plaintiff’s representatives.
• The Senior Coroner failed to ensure prompt progress of the inquest and did not take adequate steps to prevent unnecessary delay, warranting recusal.
• The Senior Coroner allowed private representations by the Crown Solicitor’s Office without allowing the Plaintiff to participate, undermining fairness.
• The Senior Coroner did not adequately oversee disclosure, particularly in relation to the provision of the Holmes Index, which impeded the Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for the inquest.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Senior Coroner denies any bias and asserts that his conduct was proper, temperate, and consistent with legal principles, including the Porter v Magill test for bias.
• The Senior Coroner was entitled to require formal requests for access to documents and acted appropriately in facilitating police access to forensic notes for public interest immunity considerations.
• The delay in obtaining the investigating officer’s report was due largely to ongoing judicial reviews, police resistance, and complex legal issues beyond the Senior Coroner’s control.
• The Senior Coroner’s ruling on anonymity and screening was based on detailed legal analysis and advice from senior counsel; errors made do not amount to bias.
• The refusal to issue a witness summons for Sergeant A was based on jurisdictional limitations and was not irrational or biased; the Senior Coroner later conceded to issue a summons following judicial review.
• The Senior Coroner’s engagement with private representations from the Crown Solicitor’s Office was proper and consistent with his statutory obligations.
• The Senior Coroner has no statutory power to compel the police to provide an exhaustive index of documents but has taken reasonable steps to ensure disclosure in accordance with the law and relevant judicial rulings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied the established legal test for bias from Porter v Magill, focusing on whether a fair-minded and informed observer would perceive a real possibility of bias by the Senior Coroner. The court carefully examined the allegations of bias under several distinct headings, considering the evidence and submissions in detail.

Regarding the forensic notes, the court found that the Senior Coroner acted properly in requiring formal requests and in permitting police access for public interest immunity considerations. The perceived disparity in treatment was due to procedural necessity rather than bias. The court noted that the Senior Coroner responded temperately to criticism despite heightened tensions.

In relation to the investigating officer’s report, the court concluded that delays were attributable to ongoing litigation, police resistance to disclosure, and complex legal issues, not to any failure or bias by the Senior Coroner. The Senior Coroner took appropriate steps to obtain and review the report and to manage disclosure within his powers.

The court held that errors in the Senior Coroner’s handling of anonymity and screening applications, including procedural errors and assumptions about witnesses’ fears, did not amount to bias. The Senior Coroner sought and followed legal advice and was willing to reconsider decisions when errors were identified.

On the refusal to issue a witness summons for Sergeant A, the court found the Senior Coroner’s decision was based on jurisdictional limitations and was a reasonable exercise of discretion. The later concession to issue a summons following judicial review did not indicate prior bias.

The court rejected allegations that the Senior Coroner’s conduct caused unjustifiable delay, noting that most delay was due to factors outside his control, including deficiencies in coronial rules, government inaction, legal aid issues, and police resistance. The Senior Coroner made significant efforts to progress the inquest and manage complex procedural matters.

Regarding private representations and disclosure oversight, the court found that the Senior Coroner’s interactions with the Crown Solicitor’s Office were proper and consistent with his statutory role. The court accepted the Senior Coroner’s explanation for how he became aware of relevant case law and noted that he conducted proceedings transparently and fairly.

Finally, the court addressed the issue of the Holmes Index, concluding that while it was a useful document for disclosure, the Senior Coroner had no statutory power to compel its production and had taken reasonable steps to facilitate disclosure. The court found no evidence that the Senior Coroner’s approach to the index indicated bias.

Overall, the court found no real possibility that the Senior Coroner was biased or had predetermined any issues. Allegations of bias were often retrospective characterizations of legitimate judicial decisions or errors of law, which do not meet the legal test for bias.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final ruling was to DISMISS the application for judicial review seeking the removal of the Senior Coroner on grounds of bias.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Senior Coroner will continue to preside over the inquest into Pearse Jordan’s death. The court found no basis to disqualify him for apparent or substantive bias. The decision does not establish any new precedent but reaffirms the application of the Porter v Magill test in assessing judicial bias and the principle that errors of law or procedural mistakes, absent evidence of bias, do not warrant recusal. The ruling underscores the challenges faced by coroners in managing complex and protracted inquests involving multiple parties and extensive litigation.