Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, In the Matter of

Factual and Procedural Background

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (the Commission) sought judicial review of a decision by HM Coroner for Greater Belfast, Judge Leckey, who was directed to act as coroner for the district of Fermanagh and Tyrone to hold an inquest into the deaths resulting from the Omagh bomb explosion on 15 August 1998. During the inquest, the coroner decided on 27 September 2000 that although he was willing to receive submissions from the Commission on human rights issues, he did not believe the Commission had the power to make such submissions to him.

The inquest was initially set to begin on 6 September 2000, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for 30 August 2000 to address procedural matters. The coroner invited the Commission to make formal submissions on potential human rights issues regarding the pre-inquest disclosure of depositions, maps, and photographs requested by solicitors for victims' families. Despite the Commission preparing a detailed skeleton argument, the coroner allowed disclosure without hearing oral submissions from the Commission at the preliminary hearing.

Subsequently, during the inquest, the coroner arranged to hear submissions on the scope of questioning police effectiveness in response to a bomb warning. The Commission indicated it wished to make submissions on human rights principles arising from these matters. After receiving the Commission’s written submissions, the coroner determined that the question of the Commission’s power to make submissions required resolution and scheduled a hearing for 27 September 2000.

At the hearing on 27 September, detailed submissions were made by counsel for the Commission. The coroner ruled that the Commission did not have statutory power under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to intervene in judicial proceedings. He declined to rule on whether the Commission should be permitted to participate or on what basis. The coroner proceeded with the inquest, which was completed while the judicial review application was pending.

The court agreed to hear arguments and provide a conclusion on the Commission’s powers despite no substantive relief being available after the inquest’s completion, citing the importance of settling the issue.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has statutory power under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to intervene or make submissions (either as an intervener or amicus curiae) in judicial proceedings such as an inquest.
2. Whether the Commission qualifies as a "properly interested person" entitled to participate in inquest proceedings under Rule 7(1) of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963.
3. The scope of a coroner’s discretion to allow intervention or amicus curiae submissions in inquest proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

Commission's Arguments

• The Commission argued it had power under section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to make submissions to courts and tribunals on human rights issues.
• It contended that it should be permitted to intervene or act as amicus curiae to assist the court in resolving human rights questions arising in the inquest.
• Reliance was placed on subsection (6) of section 69 concerning the promotion of understanding and awareness of human rights, and ministerial statements indicating parliamentary intent to allow such submissions.
• The Commission also submitted that it qualified as a "properly interested person" under Rule 7(1) of the Coroners Rules, entitling it to participate in the inquest.

Coroner's and Respondent's Arguments

• The coroner held that the Commission’s statutory functions did not expressly or by reasonable implication confer a power to intervene or make submissions in judicial proceedings.
• It was argued that the Commission’s functions under section 69 are specific and do not include advancing or advocating particular views in court proceedings.
• The coroner noted the difference between the Commission bringing proceedings and making submissions in proceedings brought by others, emphasizing the inquisitorial nature of inquests.
• Ministerial statements were interpreted as addressing only the courts’ discretion to permit submissions, not conferring statutory power on the Commission.
• Doubts were expressed about whether the Commission could be regarded as a "properly interested person" entitled to participate under the Coroners Rules.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Re White’s Application (2000, unreported)	Consideration of Commission’s power to act as amicus curiae or intervener	The court clarified it had not decided on the Commission’s power in that case and assumed it had such power without ruling.
Re McConnell’s Application [2000] NIJB 116	Principle for hearing argument and expressing conclusion despite no substantive relief	The court applied the principle to justify hearing the application on the Commission’s powers post-inquest.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 456	Conditions under which a court might make a declaration	The court found the case satisfied the conditions for making a declaration on the Commission’s powers.
Re Jordan’s Application [1995] NI 308	Coroner’s inherent jurisdiction to control proceedings	Supported the coroner’s discretion to permit intervention or amicus curiae submissions.
R v Lincoln Coroner, ex parte Hay (1999), The Times, 3 March	Coroner’s power to control proceedings and allow intervention	Reinforced the coroner’s discretionary power over inquest proceedings.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577	Example of third-party intervention (Amnesty International) as intervener	Illustrated the nature of intervention and distinction from amicus curiae roles.
Allen v Sir Alfred McAlpine & Sons Ltd [1968] 1 All ER 543	Role and function of amicus curiae	Clarified that amicus curiae is non-partisan and assists the court with expertise.
R v HM Coroner for the Southern District of Greater London, ex parte Driscoll (1993) 159 JP 45	Interpretation of "properly interested person" in coroners’ rules	Indicated the term may extend beyond those directly affected by the death.
Attorney-General v Great Eastern Railway Co (1880) 5 App Cas 473	Statutory powers include those incidental or consequential by reasonable implication	Guided the court’s approach to construing the Commission’s statutory powers.
Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co (1885) 10 App Cas 354	Derivation of incidental powers by reasonable implication	Supported the narrow construction of the Commission’s powers.
Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne [1910] AC 87	Remarks on statutory construction of powers	Referenced in support of limited implied powers for the Commission.
Equal Opportunities Commission v Secretary of State for Employment [1994] 1 All ER 910	Standing and locus standi of a statutory body to apply for judicial review	Distinguished from the present case, indicating the Commission’s narrower statutory functions.
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593	Use of Hansard to interpret ambiguous statutory provisions	The court was cautious about relying on Hansard for statutory interpretation here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the coroner’s inherent jurisdiction to control proceedings and the discretion to permit intervention or amicus curiae submissions, distinguishing between the two roles. The coroner viewed the Commission as potentially equivalent to a "properly interested person" under the Coroners Rules but expressed doubts about this status due to the Commission’s statutory functions.

The court conducted a detailed statutory construction analysis of section 69 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which sets out the Commission’s functions. Despite interpreting the provisions broadly and sympathetically, the court found no express or reasonably implied power enabling the Commission to intervene or make submissions in judicial proceedings. The functions focus on reviewing law, making recommendations, advising government bodies, supporting litigation by others, and promoting human rights awareness, none of which equate to appearing or submitting in inquests.

The court rejected the Commission’s argument that subsection (6) conferred such power, distinguishing between educational/promotional activities and legal advocacy or assistance in court proceedings. It also found ministerial statements and parliamentary debates did not clarify or confer statutory power, but rather assumed the Commission would have such power if the courts permitted it.

Comparing with the Equal Opportunities Commission case, the court noted the Commission’s statutory remit was more limited and specific, not encompassing an overall function to advance human rights observance through court submissions. Consequently, the Commission lacked locus standi or statutory authority to intervene or act as amicus curiae in the inquest.

On this basis, the court upheld the coroner’s ruling, dismissing the application for judicial review.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission does not have statutory power under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to intervene or make submissions (whether as amicus curiae or intervener) in inquest proceedings or similar judicial processes.

The court DISMISSED the Commission’s application for judicial review challenging the coroner’s decision.

The direct effect is that the Commission cannot participate in such proceedings by making submissions unless expressly permitted by statute or court discretion, and no broader precedent was established beyond the interpretation of the Commission’s statutory powers in this context.