Cummings v Coroner in the Inquest into the Death of Seamus Dillon (Deceased)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal from a decision of a High Court judge dated 17 April 2023 refusing leave to apply for judicial review of a coronial decision. The coronial decision, made by a coroner, denied the appellant status as a properly interested person (PIP) in an inquest concerning the death of a deceased individual on 27 December 1997 outside a hotel in The City, The State. The appellant was seriously injured and paralysed in the same attack that caused the deceased's death. Both the appellant and the deceased were working as security personnel at the hotel on the night of the attack, which involved gunfire from Loyalist paramilitaries. The appellant survived but sustained life-changing injuries and reduced life expectancy.

The appellant and the deceased's next of kin allege that agents of the state assisted those involved in the attack, raising issues about whether the attack could have been prevented or forewarned. The appellant applied to the coroner for PIP status, which was refused. The appellant then appealed the refusal through judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the coroner erred in law by failing to apply the correct test for determining if the appellant has a proper interest in the inquest proceedings.
2. Whether the coroner failed to adequately consider the appellant's rights under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to an effective investigation.
3. Whether the coroner's decision to refuse PIP status was irrational.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The coroner applied an incorrect legal test regarding the appellant's proper interest in the inquest.
• The appellant’s Article 2 ECHR rights require that he be granted PIP status to ensure an effective investigation into the circumstances of the attack.
• The coroner’s decision was irrational given the appellant’s involvement and injuries sustained in the attack.

Respondent's Arguments

• The proper interest for PIP status must relate specifically to the inquest into the deceased’s death, not to the appellant’s injuries.
• The coroner's jurisdiction is limited to answering statutory questions concerning the deceased’s death and cannot extend to parallel inquiries.
• The decision to refuse PIP status was a discretionary and fact-specific determination appropriately made by the coroner.
• The coroner’s decision took into account all relevant considerations and was lawful and reasonable.
• The coroner may review PIP status if new evidence arises during the inquest.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework governing coronial inquests in Northern Ireland, particularly section 31 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and rule 7 of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963. The coroner's discretion to grant properly interested person status (PIP) requires a fact-sensitive and context-sensitive assessment, focusing on whether the person has a substantial, genuine interest in the inquest proceedings themselves.

The court emphasized that the inquest's statutory purpose is to determine who the deceased was and how, when, and where the deceased died, not to investigate injuries to survivors. The appellant's interest, while significant in the context of the attack, relates primarily to his own injuries and not directly to the death of the deceased, which is the inquest's focus.

The court reviewed relevant case law, including the English authorities, noting that the term "properly interested person" is given an ordinary meaning and requires more than mere curiosity or status as a witness. The coroner's decision was scrutinized under public law principles, requiring that all relevant considerations be taken into account without bias or irrationality.

The court found that the coroner properly considered the appellant's application, including his Article 2 ECHR rights, and reasonably concluded that the appellant did not have a proper interest sufficient to grant PIP status. The coroner's decision was neither unlawful nor irrational, and no material consideration was omitted.

The court recognized that the appellant remains an important witness and may attend the inquest, give evidence, and liaise with legal teams. The scope of the inquest remains under review, and the coroner may reconsider PIP status if new evidence emerges.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appellant's appeal against the refusal to grant properly interested person status in the inquest.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant will not have the formal rights associated with PIP status, such as examining witnesses through legal representatives. However, the appellant may still participate as a witness and remain informed throughout the inquest. The decision confirms that PIP status is a discretionary, fact-specific determination focused on the inquest's statutory purpose of investigating the deceased's death, not related injuries to survivors. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.