In the matter of an application by JR222 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland)

Under section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005, a Minister may suspend a public inquiry to allow a related investigation or civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings to be completed only when suspension appears necessary for that purpose. Necessity governs both the decision to suspend and the duration of any suspension.

The provision poses one coherent question. Its language, legislative purpose and history exclude an unrestricted preliminary discretion to suspend. This construction protects the public interest in inquiries proceeding without unnecessary delay while permitting suspension where parallel proceedings genuinely require it.

A former nurse charged with offences concerning alleged abuse at Muckamore Abbey Hospital asked the Minister of Health to suspend the statutory public inquiry into events at the hospital until her criminal proceedings had concluded. The Minister refused because extensive safeguards meant that suspension was not necessary to protect those proceedings.

Colton J dismissed the application for judicial review in [2022] NIKB 3. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in [2022] NICA 57. The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether “necessary” in section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 qualified only the period of suspension or also the decision whether to suspend.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Stephens delivered the judgment, with which Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Burrows, Lord Richards and Lady Simler agreed. Section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 naturally poses one question which must be considered and answered as a whole. A Minister may suspend an inquiry for a statutory purpose only where suspension appears necessary, and only for a period which appears necessary: paras 81–82, 92.

2. The statutory language was consistent with that construction. It would be illogical to impose necessity only upon the less important question of duration while leaving the anterior decision to suspend subject to an undefined discretion. Moreover, because the duration of related proceedings may lie outside ministerial control, necessity cannot sensibly govern duration alone: paras 83, 86 and 88.

3. The construction advanced the statutory purpose of a public inquiry. An inquiry addresses public concern by establishing what happened and, where appropriate, making recommendations. Suspending it without necessity would delay that public interest despite safeguards capable of protecting parallel proceedings. Section 13 expressly envisages that an inquiry may continue while criminal proceedings are pending: paras 52, 62 and 85.

4. The conditions for consulting Hansard under Pepper v Hart were satisfied. Section 13(1) was ambiguous; the relevant statement came from a promoter of the Bill; and it stated clearly that suspension was permitted only when necessary to allow related investigations or proceedings to be completed. The statement was a decisive aid to interpretation. The Explanatory Notes supplied further support because they described when it might be necessary to halt an inquiry temporarily: paras 78, 80 and 84–87.

5. The unrestricted power under section 14(1)(b) to end an inquiry did not support a different construction. Ending an inquiry presupposes that it is no longer needed, whereas suspension occurs despite a continuing public interest in its work. Nor did section 13(5), which requires reasons without repeating the word “necessary”, alter the governing test. Reasons for suspension should explain necessity: paras 89–90.

6. The Minister therefore applied the correct test when refusing suspension because it was unnecessary in light of the safeguards protecting the criminal proceedings. The decisions remained lawful: paras 44–47, 69–70 and 92.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: Dismissed the appeal unanimously and affirmed the construction adopted below: [2024] UKSC 35.
2. Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland: Dismissed the appeal, holding that section 13(1) of the Inquiries Act 2005 required one coherent decision governed by necessity: [2022] NICA 57.
3. High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland: Colton J dismissed the judicial review challenge, holding that a suspension had to be necessary before it could be imposed: [2022] NIKB 3.