A & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 30 (26 April 2007)

A & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 30 (26 April 2007)

The Inquiry Panel erred in law by failing to apply the correct test under Article 2 ECHR, namely whether there was a real risk to life if the applicants gave evidence without anonymity or screening. The Panel wrongly focused on subjective fears and increased risk, contrary to binding authority. This substantive legal error rendered the decisions unlawful and justified quashing them and requiring reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal standard.

Citation
[2007] NIQB 30
Parties
Applicants: Witnesses A, B, C, K and N; Respondent: Billy Wright Inquiry Panel
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
26 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Decision on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application allowed; decisions quashed; mandamus granted
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Witness Anonymity, Article 2 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Inquiries
Public Law Human Rights Law Judicial Review Witness Anonymity Article 2 ECHR Procedural Fairness Inquiries

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Witnesses A, B, C, K and N

Applicants

Billy Wright Inquiry Panel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Decision on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inquiry Panel applied the correct legal test under Article 2 ECHR for witness anonymity and screening
  2. 2 Whether the Panel failed to obtain individualised risk assessments for each applicant
  3. 3 Whether the Panel's process was procedurally unfair by not disclosing relied-upon materials to applicants

Ratio Decidendi

The Inquiry Panel erred in law by failing to apply the correct test under Article 2 ECHR, namely whether there was a real risk to life if the applicants gave evidence without anonymity or screening. The Panel wrongly focused on subjective fears and increased risk, contrary to binding authority. This substantive legal error rendered the decisions unlawful and justified quashing them and requiring reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal standard.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decisions quashed; mandamus granted

Orders

  • Order of Certiorari quashing the Inquiry Panel's decisions of 9 October 2006 and 26 October 2006 refusing anonymity and/or screening to the applicants
  • Order of Mandamus requiring the Inquiry Panel to reconsider each applicant's application for anonymity and/or screening in accordance with the judgment and the law as set out in Re Officer L & Others' Application [2007] NICA 8