Jordan (AP) (Appellant) v. Lord Chancellor and another (Respondents) (Northern Ireland)McCaughey (AP) (Appellant) v. Chief Constable of the Police Service Northern Ireland (Respondent) (Northern Ireland)

At a Northern Irish inquest into a death predating the Human Rights Act 1998, the jury may not return a verdict of lawful or unlawful killing. It may, however, make relevant factual findings and draw factual inferences which point strongly towards or away from criminal liability. The statutory prohibition concerns opinions on liability, not the jury’s traditional fact-finding function.

Section 8 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 imposes a continuing duty on the police. Subject to privilege or immunity, they must furnish the coroner with relevant information held when notice of the death is given and information obtained thereafter.

These conjoined appeals concerned inquests into two men shot and killed by state agents in Northern Ireland before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. In Jordan, the Court of Appeal dismissed challenges to the inquest procedure: [2004] NICA 29. In McCaughey, it held that section 8 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 required the police to disclose only information obtainable when initial notice of the death was given: [2005] NICA 1.

The common issue was what findings or verdict a Northern Irish inquest jury could return. McCaughey also raised whether section 8 imposed a continuing police duty to provide the coroner with information acquired after the initial notice.

1. Disposition. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Lord Rodger and Lord Brown agreed with it, and Baroness Hale agreed with the proposed disposition. Jordan’s appeal was dismissed. McCaughey’s appeal was allowed on the section 8 disclosure issue. Lord Mance dissented on the availability of lawful or unlawful killing verdicts but agreed on the remaining issues, including disclosure.

2. Temporal application of the Convention legislation. Per Lord Bingham, the decision in In re McKerr [2004] UKHL 12 precluded reliance on section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in an inquest into a death occurring before 2 October 2000. The Act did not apply to the investigation of either death. Jamieson remained applicable to pre-Act deaths and was not overruled by Middleton [2004] UKHL 10.

3. Scope and findings of an inquest. Per Lord Bingham, an inquest investigates fully and exposes publicly the facts surrounding a suspicious, unnatural or violent death, or a death in state custody. The coroner determines the appropriate breadth of inquiry. The investigation may range more widely than the verdict or findings.

4. Permissible verdict. Per Lord Bingham, a Northern Irish jury may not return a verdict of lawful or unlawful killing. Rule 16 of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963 prohibits any opinion on criminal liability, unlike the narrower English rule concerning liability of a named person. The omission of lawful and unlawful killing from the prescribed Northern Irish form supported that conclusion.

   The jury may nevertheless find facts directly relevant to the cause of death and draw factual inferences which point strongly towards or away from criminal liability. The jury in Re Bradley and another’s Application [1995] NI 192 had performed that traditional function. Although procedural irregularities justified quashing that inquisition, its factual findings did not breach rule 16. A brief verdict may be supplemented by detailed factual findings or answers to questions.

5. Disclosure. Per Lord Bingham, section 8 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 must be construed purposively. The police must give the coroner information held when notice is supplied and relevant information obtained later, subject to privilege or immunity. A contrary construction would frustrate the public interest in a full and effective investigation.

6. Separate opinion. Lord Mance considered that lawful and unlawful killing verdicts were legally available because the Northern Irish legislation corresponded closely with the English scheme. Baroness Hale expressed difficulty with the distinction between the jurisdictions, while observing that precise factual findings would make the disagreement of little practical significance.

1. House of Lords: Jordan’s appeal was dismissed. McCaughey’s appeal was allowed on the construction of section 8 of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: In Jordan, the court dismissed appeals from two judicial-review decisions: [2004] NICA 29. In McCaughey, it allowed the Chief Constable’s appeal and rejected a continuing duty under section 8: [2005] NICA 1.

3. High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland: Kerr J dismissed Jordan’s two judicial-review applications: [2002] NIQB 7 and [2002] NIQB 20. Weatherup J granted McCaughey declarations concerning disclosure and delay: 2004 NIQB 2.