In each case a death had occurred many years earlier where the deceased had apparently died at the hands of the armed forces. The relatives now challenged the range of verdicts which could be left to a coroner’s jury.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The Coroner must decide how widely the inquiry should range to elicit the facts pertinent to the circumstances of the death and responsibility for it. This may be a very difficult decision, and the inquiry may, as pointed out above, range more widely than the verdict or findings.’ Jamieson still remains authoritative in respect of both (i) inquests into deaths that occurred before 2nd October 2000 (the date that the HRA 1998 came into force) and (ii) inquests into deaths that occur after that date, except where re-interpretation of the 1988 Act and the 1984 Rules in accordance with the ruling in Middleton is required to avoid violation of a party’s right to an Article 2 compliant investigation, as follows: ‘ The decision of the House . . Hurst . . makes plain the answers to these questions. I summarise the answers very briefly. . . (3) No. Jamieson was approved by the House in Middleton. It continues to apply to inquests into deaths occurring before 2 October 2000 and to inquests into deaths occurring after that date save where re-interpretation of the relevant legislation and rules in accordance with the ruling of the House in Middleton is called for to avoid violation of a party’s Convention right to an investigation meeting the requirements of article 2 of the Convention . . (4) No. Jamieson should not be overruled.’
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 14, [2007] 2 WLR 754, [2007] 2 AC 226
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Northern Ireland
Citing:
See Also – Jordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 29-Jan-2002
The claimant challenged the Lord Chancellor’s failure to introduce legislation to ensure that the coroners’ system in Northern Ireland comprised with Human Rights Law. . .
See Also – Re Jordan’s Application QBNI 8-Mar-2002
The claimant challenged a ruling of the coroner on 9 January 2002 that he would conduct the inquest on the basis of existing law and practice and would not leave to the jury the option of returning a verdict of unlawful killing. . .
At ECHR – Stephen Jordan (No 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The applicant was a soldier who had been court marshalled for misuse of travel warrants. He wished to use in his defence his recent epilepsy. There was some delay while medical reports were obtained, and subsequently when the new legal system was . .
Cited – Stephen Jordan (No 2) v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Dec-2002
The applicant was a soldier who had been court marshalled for misuse of travel warrants. He wished to use in his defence his recent epilepsy. There was some delay while medical reports were obtained, and subsequently when the new legal system was . .
Cited – McCaughey and Another, Re Application for Judicial Review QBNI 20-Jan-2004
Application by the fathers of Martin McCaughey and Desmond Grew, who were killed by soldiers on 9 October 1990, for Judicial Review of the decisions of the Chief Constable and the Coroner concerning the disclosure of documents for the purposes of . .
See Also – Police Service of Northern Ireland v McCaughey and Another CANI 14-Jan-2005
. .
Cited – McCaughey, Re Application for Judicial Review CANI 6-Apr-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – McCaughey and Another, Re Application forJudicial Review SC 18-May-2011
The claimants sought a fuller inquest into deaths at the hands of the British Army in 1990 in Northern Ireland. On opening the inquest, the coroner had declined to undertake to hold a hearing compliant with article 2, and it had not made progress. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Coroners
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.251023
