BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Northern Irish Courts - Miscellaneous


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Northern Irish Courts - Miscellaneous >> Crawford, Inquest Touching Upon the Death Of (Ruling on Review of Anonymity of PC02 & PC03) [2025] NICoroner 5 (29 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/Misc/2025/NICoroner5.html
Cite as: [2025] NICoroner 5

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation No: [2025] NICoroner 5

 

 

Judgment: approved by the court for handing down

(subject to editorial corrections and proofing prior to publication)*

Ref:     [2025] NICoroner 5

 

 

 

Delivered:    29/05/2025

 

 

IN THE CORONERS COURT FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

__________

 

BEFORE THE CORONER HIS HONOUR JUDGE GILPIN

 

IN THE MATTER OF AN INQUEST TOUCHING THE DEATH OF

PATRICK CRAWFORD

__________

 

RULING ON REVIEW OF ANONYMITY OF PC02 AND PC03

__________

 

Introduction

 

[1]       I handed down my findings into the death of Patrick Crawford on 16 December 2024.  Having done so, I indicated to all parties that I was adjourning the inquest at that point to review the grant of anonymity to PC02 and PC03.  This is the ruling following that review.

 

Background

 

[2]       PC02 and PC03 had been granted anonymity at the early stages of the preparatory scoping work undertaken by CSNI. PC03 died in 2002.  PC02 had engaged with my investigators and provided a statement to them dated 24 February 2022 but subsequently died in 2023.  The written evidence provided to my investigator by PC02, and the contemporaneous evidence attributed to PC02 and PC03, formed part of the inquest materials on which I based my findings.

 

Submissions from the Next of Kin and MOD

 

[3]       Mindful of the need to be cognisant of any factors that might inform my review of the grant of anonymity to PC02 and PC03, I stated the following in my Findings, read in court of 16 December 2025 at para [291]:

 

“[291] Finally, and as noted earlier in these findings, two soldiers, whose identities were anonymised for the purposes of this inquest, PC02 and PC03, are deceased. Given that, and subsequent to these Findings, it is appropriate to revisit the grant of anonymity to them and I propose to now do so.  However, before doing so, I wish to give the properly interested persons the opportunity to make written submissions on this issue, should they so wish, and ask that they do so by Monday 6 January 2025.  I will then consider any submissions received before making my final decision on this issue.  Once I have made my decision on that issue, I will let all parties know and this inquest will then be formally closed.

 

[4]       On 20 December 2024, I subsequently extended this deadline to 27 January 2025, following a request by the Ministry of Defence (‘MOD’), to which the Next of Kin (‘NOK’) did not object.

 

[5]       On 7 January 2025, I requested an update from the MOD indicating what progress they had made in respect of tracing the NOK of PC02 and PC03.  I received an update on progress by the MOD on their efforts to contact and seek the views of the NOK of PC02 and PC03 by email from the Crown Solicitor’s Office (‘CSO’) on 14 January 2025.  This update reassured me that all necessary steps were being taken to trace and make contact with their NOK, but that this involved research to obtain information to make this possible and so would require some more time.

 

[6]       By email to CSNI on 27 January 2025 deadline, the MOD informed that the NOK of PC03 were not traceable and that PC02’s NOK had been traced and were to be consulted.  The correspondence also stated that the MOD were considering a challenge to my findings in the inquest and asked that I take no further action regarding anonymity until they had reached a decision on that issue.  They informed that if a challenge was to be taken, a PAP letter would issue on or before 31 January 2025.  Given that indication, I considered it appropriate to extend the deadline for submission until 31 January 2025.

 

[7]       By email of 31 January 2025, the MOD informed that, if a PAP letter was to be served, it would be provided by 7 February 2025.  In any event, by email of 3 February 2025, the MOD informed that no further action was being taken by them as regards my findings but asked that they be allowed a further two weeks to allow them to take instructions with regards to the anonymity of PC02 and a short time thereafter to finalise instructions.  In those circumstances, I granted a further final extension of four weeks to 4 March 2025.

 

[8]       CSNI emailed the CSO on 4 March 2025 asking that the MOD inform the Coroner of their position.  By response on 4 March 2025, CSO advised that the MOD would not be making any submissions on the anonymity of PC02 and PC03.

 

[9]       To ensure that I had all potentially relevant information for my review, I asked that the MOD confirm that they had contacted the NOK of PC02 and what steps they had taken to contact the NOK of PC03.  I also asked that the MOD confirm to me that the NOK, as contactable, did not wish to make any representations on the issue of anonymity.

 

[10]     By email of 5 March 2025, the MOD replied to say that they had made contact with the NOK of PC02, consulted with them at length, taking their views and circumstances into consideration, before ultimately agreeing that no submissions would be made as regards PC02’s anonymity.  MOD further informed that they were unable to make contact with the NOK of PC03 despite undertaking various searches, detailed to me, and which I was satisfied were appropriate and sufficient in all the circumstances.

 

[11]     On 6 March 2025, Patrick Crawford’s NOK wrote to me setting out their submissions that “any legal basis for anonymity is now extremely weak and that the protection of anonymity should not be continued”.

 

Decision

 

[12]     The issue of the grant of anonymity to witnesses at inquests was recently touched upon by the Court of Appeal in In the Matter of an Application by William Thompson for Judicial Review [2025] NICA 25, where the court stated:

 

“[30]   The application of anonymity for a witness is not addressed in the rules but is part of the common law powers of a coroner to conduct proceedings as he or she sees fit.  A coroner’s limited discretion to depart from the principle of open justice was outlined by the Divisional Court in England and Wales in the case of R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Assistant Deputy Coroner for Inner West London [2010] EWHC 3098 (Admin).  In this case, the court emphasised at para [36] the importance of holding legal proceedings in public, ‘unless there is good reason for them not to be.’

 

[31]     However, it is a common occurrence in legacy inquests in Northern Ireland that protective measures are granted to witnesses, because of ongoing risks or threats to serving or former members of security forces.  The obligation to do so derives from their Convention rights.  Nevertheless, such a clear derogation from the principle of open justice has meant that authorities have found the issue of anonymity must be kept under review.  In general, the issue may need to be reconsidered in two situations:

 

(i)             There is a material change of circumstances which merits a re-balancing of the competing interests at play; and/or

 

(ii)           The coroner is requested to reconsider by either the witness, or one of the properly interested persons (“PIPs”) in the proceedings on the basis that there is a change in circumstances or new information.

 

These principles are derived from two notable cases, Re McDonnell and Re Officer C and others [2012] NICA 47.”

 

[13]     Since the grant of anonymity to both PC02 and PC03, there has been a material change in circumstances in that both these individuals are now deceased.  Given that, and that I have heard no submissions that I may neither review nor rescind their anonymity, it is my view that there is no reason for continued anonymity regarding either PC02 or PC03.  I will, therefore, ask that CSNI take steps to ensure that the names of these two individuals are formally reflected in the final and publicly available version of my Findings as soon as administratively possible - which I expect to be at some point tomorrow.

 

Conclusion and closure of the inquest

 

[14]     I had indicated to Patrick Crawford’s NOK and the MOD that once I had reviewed the issue of anonymity and made this ruling, I would formally close the inquest.  Given that notice to them, and the fact that no party has reverted to me to indicate that I should not do so, I now formally close the inquest into the death of Patrick Crawford.

 

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010