A recent Northern Irish case has reached the Supreme Court to determine the application of the word “necessary” in the context of suspending a public inquiry. 

Facts

In September 2020, an Inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005 to investigate the allegations of abuse of patients by staff at Muckamore Abbey Hospital from 1999 to 2021. This meant that there was some overlap with the criminal investigation and proceedings, which were already underway in relation to events between April and June 2017 and measures have been put in place by the Inquiry to protect the integrity of the criminal proceedings. 

The Appellant (in this case, the accused in the criminal proceedings and a former Staff Nurse at Muckamore Abbey Hospital) requested the suspension of the Inquiry under s13(1)(b) of the Inquiries Act until the criminal proceedings had concluded, arguing it infringed her right to a fair trial under the European Convention of Human Rights. The Minister of Health for Northern Ireland refused on the basis it was not “necessary” to suspend the Inquiry to allow for the determination of the criminal proceedings. 

The Appellant sought judicial review of the decision arguing that the word “necessary” only applied to the length of the suspension, not the decision whether to suspend.

Decision

The High Court disagreed with the Appellant’s argument and held that the Minister of Health had applied the correct test.

The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the Appellant and dismissed the appeal, noting that the Appellant’s interpretation would unnecessarily delay the vital work of the Inquiry.

The Supreme Court published its judgment on 30 October 2024 and unanimously dismissed the appeal. The word “necessary” in s13 of the Inquiries Act applies to both the length of the suspension and the decision to suspend. As such, the Inquiry was not suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. In reaching this decision, the Court applied the normal principles of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of the word “necessary” in light of its context and the purpose of the provision. Again, the Court noted that a suspension would lead to a delay in the public interest being served by an Inquiry.

Key takeaway

For public inquiries, this judgment brings further clarity to the ability for inquiries to proceed concurrently alongside criminal proceedings, provided it is determined that it is not necessary to suspend.

When interpreting public law provisions, you must consider the normal statutory principles – including the meaning of the words, the context of the clause, the original purpose and the potential implications for justice and the public interest. 

In the matter of an application by JR222 for Judicial Review (AP) (Appellant) (Northern Ireland) - The Supreme Court

[2024] UKSC 35

Article written by Alice Eckley and Emma Maguire.