Coroner will not fast-track Troubles inquests to ‘circumvent’ looming ban

A coroner has insisted he will not fast-track the hearing of Troubles inquests to circumvent a looming Government ban on such legacy probes.

Joe McCrisken said it would not be proper to bring forward the start dates for planned inquests to get around the anticipated cut-off point for new hearings.

The Government is currently putting controversial legacy laws through Parliament.

The draft legislation, which is not yet enacted, would offer immunity from prosecution for people accused of Troubles offences, as long as they cooperate with a new truth recovery body, and also halt future civil cases and inquests linked to killings during the conflict.

The Coroners’ Court in Northern Ireland is currently working its way through a schedule of legacy inquests related to the Troubles, some covering incidents from 50 years ago.

While many of the inquests have concluded, several have yet to begin.

One of those cases is the death of 31-year-old INLA man Alexander Patterson, who was shot dead by the SAS near Strabane in November 1990.

The shooting happened as the SAS ambushed a planned INLA attack on the home of a UDR member.

At preliminary review hearing of the case in Belfast on Friday, a barrister for the Patterson family voiced concern about the prospect of the substantive inquest not being listed for full hearing until the second half of 2023.

Barra McGrory QC told the court: “Obviously there is a real concern on the part of next of kin, given the pending legislation that could affect these matters very significantly, that some form of substantive hearing be held as soon as possible or at least that we have a clear target date.”

He added: “Even if we had an opening date set during the first half of next year it might give us some comfort.”

Mr McGrory suggested the potential for an opening hearing to be listed in advance of the rest of the proceedings. He said such a hearing could deal with initial evidence, such as biographical details about the deceased.

Mr McCrisken told the barrister that the listing date could not be influenced by events at Westminster.

“My view Mr McGrory is that as an independent judicial officer I should list this when it’s ready to be listed in the normal course of things,” he said.

“I wouldn’t be keen or minded to offer a listing date to try and circumvent any potential legislation that’s coming. I don’t think it’s proper to do that.”

The coroner assured the family’s barrister that he was “not known as someone who holds back in terms of listing”.

“So, the first possible listing date that I’m given will be the first date that I take,” he said.

Mr McCrisken added: “I’ll certainly try and look for an early date to get this matter started, but for the reason of getting the inquest started, not to try and get round some future legislation.”

The next preliminary hearing in the case has been set for November 11.