High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland Queen's Bench Division Decisions

First of all, the evidence relating to the timing of the deceased's assault on 7 July. He had reported to his solicitor that it was at 1.00 am; his wife said it was not later than 1.15 am when he arrived at her house; Mark McKeavney said that the events occurred between midnight and 0020 hours; the hospital records indicate that he arrived at the hospital at 2.20 pm.

The second criticism relates to the evidence of the timing of the police being in the vicinity. The police records indicate that they were tasked to the scene at 0134 hours and did not arrive at the scene until 0143 hours. Accordingly, it is said that the police were not at the scene at the time that the other evidence indicates the incident occurred.

Thirdly, the evidence relating to the location at which the deceased was assaulted. He told his wife that it was the corner of Malcolmson Street and Waterford Street; he told his father it was at the other end of the street where the bollards are at the Springfield Road end; Mr Carnaghan places the incident at the Waterford Street end.

Fourthly, the evidence relating to the circumstances and the nature of the assault. He told his father he was struck across the face with a truncheon, had fallen to the ground where he was kicked and beaten with batons; Mr Carnaghan described a man falling through a garden gate and being hit.

Fifthly, the evidence relating to whether the victim of the assault was bleeding. Mr Carnaghan and Mr McKeavney both noted that the man they assisted was covered in blood from his face and down his clothes but the A&E record contains no sign of blood and no lacerations and the dentist found no lacerations in the mouth.

Sixthly, the evidence relating to the deceased's account as to how he was assaulted. Contrasted with his report to his wife, father and solicitor were the Admission Notes recording the deceased's report that he was struck with a stick and made no mention of the police, and similarly in the other records of the doctors and the dentist.

"There is no evidence that any RUC officer was responsible for John's death. I can identify nothing further that we can do to take the matter forward."

"I found no basis on which I considered it necessary to look behind the police report. My conclusion, based on all of this information, was that the police officers had no relevant evidence to give as there appeared to be no independent evidence that the deceased had been assaulted by police with a baton."

[21] At paragraph 18 the Coroner refers to the attendance of the police officers at the Inquest. It had been suggested by the applicant that subjecting the officers to cross-examination about their conduct on the night in question was necessary if responsibility for the death was to be established. The Coroner responds that the only evidence supporting the allegation of police involvement –

"…. is the deceased's report to his father and the applicant and in addition there is one surviving witness in the aftermath of the assault on the deceased. In the light of the absence of any independent evidence of an assault by the police I have reached the conclusion that the police officers should not be called as witnesses."

First, an inquest is a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a Coroner with or without a jury to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions, the first relating to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of death and the third to the time of death. In most cases these questions are not hard to answer. The fourth question, and that to which evidence an inquiry are most often and most closely directed, relates to how the deceased came by his death. The Rules require that the proceedings and evidence should be directed solely to ascertaining those matters and forbids any expression of opinion on any other matter.

Secondly, "how" the deceased came by his death is to be understood as meaning "by what means". It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died, which might raise general and far-reaching issues, but how the deceased came by his death, a more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death.

Thirdly, it is not the function of a Coroner or his jury to determine or appear to determine any question of criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame.

Fourthly, the above prohibition in the Rules is fortified by considerations of fairness. The law accords a defendant accused of crime or a party alleged to have committed a civil wrong certain safeguards, rightly regarded as essential to the fairness of the proceedings, amongst them a clear statement in writing of the alleged wrongdoing or right to call any relevant and admissible evidence and a right to address factual submissions to the tribunal of fact.

Fifthly, in case of conflict, the statutory duty to ascertain how the deceased came by his death must prevail over the prohibition in relation to opinions as to criminal and civil liability. The Coroner and the jury may explore facts bearing on criminal and civil liability, but may not express any opinion on any questions of criminal or civil liability.

"I intend to conduct the inquest in accordance with the principles laid down in Jamieson, that is to enquire into by what means the deceased met his death. I do not consider that the inquest hearing should be conducted in accordance with the principles in Jordan."

Mr Hanna for the Coroner informed the Court that the Coroner was intending to distinguish the approach between an inquiry as to 'by what means' a deceased came by his death as opposed to 'in what broad circumstances'. It has been made clear by Mr Hanna that the Coroner accepts that the Jamieson/Jordan approach should be taken. Thus there is no issue in relation to the appropriate character of the Inquest. In any event the Inquest will be conducted by another Coroner.