Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an inquest into the death of the Deceased, who was shot on 3 June 1991 during an attempted attack by Organization A at a location in The City. A covert operation deployed an undercover operative (Soldier L), an arrest group and a cover group concealed in the rear of a flat-bed lorry (including Soldier B and three other soldiers). When the pre-arranged signal was given the cover group opened fire on the vehicle carrying the attackers. The coroner, Judge Humphreys, conducted an article 2 compliant inquest in 2022–2023 and delivered reserved findings in April 2024. The coroner found that the use of force by the cover group, including Soldier B, was justified but criticised planning and control aspects. The Appellant sought judicial review of specific paragraphs of the coroner's findings insofar as they related to Soldier B (excluding the coroner's finding that Soldier B shot the Deceased). Leave was refused by Judge McAlinden after a rolled-up leave and substantive hearing in 2025. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, where Judge Keegan (delivering the judgment), Judge Colton and Judge Fowler dismissed the appeal and upheld the refusal of leave.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge below applied the correct standard of review in scrutinising an article 2 inquest finding concerning the use of lethal force by a trained soldier.
2. Whether the coroner misdirected himself on article 2 principles, including the requirement of "absolute necessity" and its relationship to domestic self-defence law.
3. Whether the coroner failed to apply or properly engage with Bennett v UK (Application 5527/08) and the implications of specialist training for firearms officers.
4. Whether the coroner properly applied or engaged with the Yellow Card rules of engagement.
5. Whether the coroner's findings in relation to Soldier B were irrational or inadequately reasoned (including whether each shot or each occupant should have been considered individually).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge below applied an incorrect standard of review and should have conducted particularly thorough scrutiny of Soldier B's justification for firing, potentially substituting his own assessment.
• The coroner failed to apply the heightened obligations identified in Bennett v UK regarding trained firearms officers.
• The coroner failed to adequately engage with or give adequate reasons on Soldier B's justification for firing, including alleged failure to determine whether each shot was "unavoidably necessary" (citing Re Jordan's Application [2014] NICA 76).
• The coroner misapplied or failed to properly engage with the Yellow Card, and improperly treated the four soldiers' actions collectively rather than assessing Soldier B individually.
• The coroner's findings on necessity, proportionality and reasons were irrational or inadequate, giving rise to arguable public law grounds under article 2.

Respondents' and Contradictors' Positions

• The coroner (and those representing Soldier B and Company A) maintained that the coroner applied correct article 2 principles, reached factual findings open to him and provided detailed reasons.
• It was submitted that Bennett emphasises rigorous examination but does not create a distinct substantive test; training and planning are contextual factors for assessing whether the state offered a satisfactory explanation and whether force was "absolutely necessary".
• The Yellow Card is a relevant but non‑determinative guide; compliance or non‑compliance does not by itself decide lawfulness where article 2 is engaged.
• The judge below properly applied anxious scrutiny, placed weight on the coroner's advantage in assessing witness credibility, and additionally conducted an independent proportionality assessment which reached the same conclusion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bennett v UK Application 5527/08	Emphasises rigorous examination where state agents use lethal force; notes training is a contextual factor and that firearms-trained officers attract a higher standard of care in principle.	The court held Bennett requires rigorous scrutiny of explanations and investigative adequacy but does not create a distinct substantive test; its principles were applied contextually and found not to undermine the coroner's findings.
Re Jordan's Application [2014] NICA 76	Cited for the proposition that determinations about whether shots were "unavoidably necessary" must be made.	The court noted the Appellant's reliance on Re Jordan but found no basis to require per‑shot disaggregation in the factual circumstances; the coroner's approach was upheld.
Re Darley [1997] NI 384	Principles concerning participation by coroners' representatives in appellate proceedings.	The coroner's representatives did not participate in the appeal based on these principles; the court noted the attendance but non-participation of the coroner's representatives.
Jordan [2014] NICA 36	Procedural and substantive principles for inquest appellate review.	Cited as part of the framework supporting limits on overturning inquest factual findings; the court applied these principles when assessing scope of review.
Maguire v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2023] UKSC 20	Principles on coroners' procedural roles and participation in proceedings.	Used to justify the coroner's non-participation and to frame appellate procedure in this context.
McCann v United Kingdom [1996] 21 EHRR 97	Article 2 requires assessment from the perspective of officer confronted with an imminent threat; avoid hindsight; balance subjective belief and reasonableness.	The court reaffirmed McCann's perspective-based approach and held the coroner correctly applied that standard.
Armani Da Silva v United Kingdom [2016] 63 EHRR 12	Clarifies that "absolute necessity" under article 2 aligns with proportionality/reasonableness in domestic self-defence law.	The court relied on Armani Da Silva to reject any attempt to distinguish absolute necessity from domestic proportionality and found the coroner applied the correct standard.
R (Duggan) v North London Assistant Deputy Coroner [2017] EWCA Civ 142	Affirms assessment from the perspective of those confronted with imminent threat; relevance to article 2 inquests.	Cited as supportive authority for perspective-based assessment; not controverted by Appellant.
Shvidler and Dalston [2025] UKSC 30	Authority on proportionality in article 8 context (referred to by Appellant).	The court concluded reliance on Shvidler and Dalston was misplaced because this case concerned article 2, not article 8.
Re DB [2017] UKSC 7	Cautions against upsetting factual findings on review and the limits of appellate interference.	The court applied the cautionary principle when considering whether to disturb the coroner's factual findings, while observing the need for thorough scrutiny where article 2 is engaged.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first identified the applicable article 2 framework: an assessment from the perspective of the actor confronted with an imminent threat, combining (i) an honest and genuine belief in the necessity of force and (ii) the reasonableness/proportionality of that force. The court accepted that the coroner and the judge below applied these principles.

The court analysed (a) the standard of review and the weight due to the coroner as fact-finder; (b) the relevance of Bennett as requiring rigorous examination but not a novel substantive test; (c) the role of the Yellow Card as a relevant but non‑determinative guide; and (d) the evidential material concerning Soldier B (1991 police interview, 2022 statement, inquest oral evidence, ballistics and Soldier L's statement).

On standard of review the court agreed with the judge below that "anxious scrutiny" applies in article 2 cases but rejected submission that the reviewing court should conduct a primary merits re‑assessment in the absence of cogent contradictory evidence not before the coroner. The judge's independent proportionality assessment was accepted as consonant with required scrutiny and confirmed the coroner's conclusions.

Regarding Bennett, the court concluded that it emphasises contextual consideration of training, planning and control and the need for satisfactory explanation; it does not displace the McCann/Armani Da Silva framework. The court examined Soldier B's training and the rapidity of events (one to two seconds during which eight aimed shots were fired) and found that disaggregating each shot was artificial given operational reality.

On the Yellow Card, the court accepted both coroner and judge treated it as a guide; they addressed training and rules of engagement and reasonably concluded that the actions were within the Yellow Card's guidance in the circumstances or, at least, that non‑compliance would not be determinative of illegality.

The court scrutinised Soldier B's contemporaneous and later accounts and the coroner's findings that Soldier B honestly believed the occupants posed a continuing lethal threat. Those findings were open to the coroner on the evidence and were supported objectively by the material before the inquest. The court therefore found no arguable public law error, irrationality or failure of reasons in the coroner's treatment of Soldier B.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED; LEAVE REFUSED

Holding: The Court of Appeal concluded that the judge below correctly refused leave to apply for judicial review and that the coroner's findings in relation to Soldier B were rational, adequately reasoned and made in accordance with article 2 jurisprudence. The court also stated that, had leave been granted, it would have dismissed the substantive challenge on the merits.

Implications: The direct effect is that the coroner's findings as to Soldier B's honest belief, subjective reasonableness and proportionality of force are upheld; no remedy is granted to the Appellant. The court noted that no novel legal test or broader precedent was established and emphasised that Bennett, the Yellow Card and article 2 principles remain part of the contextual and legal matrix but did not, on these facts, require quashing of the coroner's findings.