The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland v Fee Re And Inquest into the death of Liam Paul Thompson

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal concerns a judicial review brought by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Appellant) against rulings of a coroner in a legacy inquest into the death of the deceased, who was murdered in 1994. The inquest was opened in 1995 but remains incomplete after nearly 30 years. The coroner intended to complete the inquest before the statutory cut-off date of 1 May 2024, imposed by the Northern Ireland (Troubles and Reconciliation) Act 2023, but this was not achievable. A key issue arose regarding whether the coroner had the authority to release a gist of sensitive material after conducting a Public Interest Immunity (PII) exercise.

Late disclosure of sensitive Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) material, particularly a set referred to as Folder 7, led to contested decisions about disclosure. The coroner ordered a gist—a summary of relevant material—to be provided to the next of kin, despite objections from the Secretary of State and the PSNI. Two judicial reviews were brought against the coroner’s rulings on the gists, with the High Court dismissing the applications. The Secretary of State appealed these decisions to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal conducted an expedited hearing, including consideration of sensitive closed material, and provided a summary dismissal of the appeal on 30 April 2024, with written reasons following.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the coroner acted lawfully and within her powers in ordering the release of a gist summarising sensitive material subject to PII.
2. Whether the coroner’s decision to disclose the gist was irrational or outside the bounds of her discretion.
3. Whether procedural fairness safeguards were breached in the process leading to the gist’s disclosure.
4. Whether the coroner provided adequate reasons for her decision.
5. Whether the coroner had the power to release the gist given the statutory deadline for closure of legacy inquests.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The coroner acted unlawfully and irrationally by ordering disclosure of the gist.
• Procedural fairness was compromised as the Secretary of State and other parties were not afforded adequate opportunity to make submissions on the second gist.
• The coroner failed to provide adequate reasons for her decision.
• The coroner lacked power to release the gist given the impending statutory deadline for closure of legacy inquests, and the disclosure was effectively for disclosure’s sake.

Respondent's Arguments

• The coroner acted within her judicial discretion and applied the correct legal principles, including a balancing exercise between open justice and national security.
• Procedural fairness was maintained through judicial review proceedings where all parties were represented and able to make submissions.
• The coroner gave clear and cogent reasons for her decisions, including closed reasons addressing national security concerns.
• The coroner’s power to release the gist was lawful and consistent with her duties under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which requires effective investigation and disclosure.
• The gist was a partial, non-identifying summary that did not breach the Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) policy or public interest immunity.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police ex parte Wiley [1995] 1 AC 274	Balancing public interest in open justice against harm to national security in disclosure decisions.	Guided the coroner's balancing exercise between disclosure and national security risks.
Al Rawi v The Security Service [2011] UKSC 34	Judicial role in determining public interest immunity claims.	Supported the principle that courts, not government, decide on PII claims.
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner North London [2013] EWHC 3724 (Admin)	Detailed principles for assessing PII claims and balancing national security against open justice.	Provided a framework of nine principles applied by the coroner and affirmed by the court.
R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 559	Status and justification of the NCND policy as a subset of PII.	Clarified that NCND requires justification and is not an automatic protection.
Flynn v Chief Constable of PSNI [2018] NICA 3	Encouragement of use of gists to manage sensitive material disclosure in legacy cases.	Supported the coroner’s approach to using gists in legacy inquests.
Jordan v UK (2003) 37 EHRR 2	Article 2 ECHR procedural obligation for effective and accountable death investigations.	Informed the coroner’s duty to conduct a fair and transparent investigation with disclosure.
Nachova & others v Bulgaria (2006) 42 EHRR 43	Further articulation of Article 2 ECHR procedural obligations.	Supported the requirement for an effective investigation with public scrutiny.
R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner [2004] 2 AC 182	Procedural fairness in coronial investigations.	Reinforced the coroner’s obligation to conduct a fair investigation.
Re Officer C [2012] NICA 47	Discretion of coroners to regulate inquests for full, fair, and fearless inquiry.	Recognized the coroner’s wide discretion in procedural and substantive matters.
R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others [2021] UKSC 7	Application of anxious scrutiny in national security decisions by the Home Secretary.	Distinguished as not directly applicable to coroner’s decisions in this case.
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19	National security considerations in executive decisions.	Distinguished as not directly applicable to coroner’s judicial balancing exercise.
In the Matter of an Inquest into the death of Noah Donohoe [2022] NICoroner 3	Protection against abuse of power in withholding information in coronial proceedings.	Supported the coroner’s independent role in balancing disclosure and national security.
In the Matter of an Application by Freddie Scappaticci for Judicial Review [2003] NIQB 56	Upholding NCND policy in context of Article 2 rights and risk to life.	Reinforced the legitimacy of NCND within specific factual contexts.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court of Appeal emphasized its supervisory jurisdiction in judicial review, not a merits-based re-examination. It acknowledged the coroner as an independent judicial office holder with wide discretion to conduct inquests, including balancing disclosure against national security concerns under PII principles.

The court accepted the coroner’s application of established legal principles, including the balancing framework set out in Wiley, Al Rawi, and the Litvinenko case, and her consideration of Article 2 ECHR procedural obligations requiring effective and transparent investigations. The coroner conducted a detailed PII exercise, upheld PII claims over most sensitive material, but allowed a partial gist summarizing some relevant information, which was non-identifying and did not breach the NCND policy.

The court found no legal error or irrationality in the coroner’s decision. It held that procedural fairness was maintained despite the expedited and somewhat unorthodox process, as all parties were represented and aware of the gist content through judicial review proceedings.

The court rejected the argument that the coroner lacked power to order disclosure given the statutory deadline, emphasizing the coroner’s Article 2 obligations and the importance of open justice, particularly in legacy inquests with long delays. It noted the supportive position of the Chief Constable regarding disclosure and found the gist to be a balanced and appropriate measure to provide information to the family without compromising national security.

The court distinguished this case from others involving executive decisions on national security, such as Begum and Pham, noting the coroner’s role in a nuanced judicial balancing exercise rather than a purely executive assessment.

Overall, the court concluded that no public law wrong was committed by the coroner and that the decision to order disclosure of the gist was lawful, rational, procedurally fair, and supported by adequate reasons.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED THE APPEAL, upholding the coroner’s decision to order disclosure of the second gist summarizing sensitive material in the legacy inquest.

The direct effect is that the coroner may proceed with the disclosure of the gist to the next of kin, preserving the balance between open justice and national security. The decision reinforces the coroner’s independent judicial role in managing sensitive material and conducting Article 2-compliant investigations. The court emphasized that this ruling is fact-specific and does not establish a binding precedent for other cases, particularly given the unique context of legacy inquests and the statutory deadline for their closure.