In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for JR [2025] UKSC 47

In the matter of an application by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for Judicial Review (Appellant)

Case ID: UKSC/2024/0083

Judgment date: 17 December 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKSC 47

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uks...

The appeal involves a challenge to two decisions made by Louisa Fee (“the Coroner”) to disclose gists of evidence over which PII was asserted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, acting by the Minister of State for Northern Ireland (together, the “Secretary of State”). PII comes into play where a relevant aspect of the public interest indicates that evidence which would otherwise be relevant and admissible in legal proceedings should not be disclosed or placed in the public domain and therefore should be treated as inadmissible or as admissible only in the form of a gist of the information contained in the evidence. A “gist” is a summary drafted in such a way as to protect any secret information.

The decisions to disclose gists of information were made in the context of the inquest into the death of Liam Paul Thompson (“the deceased”), who was shot and killed in 1994 near a gap in a peace line separating nationalist and unionist neighbourhoods in Belfast. No one has ever been held accountable for his death. The inquest was opened in August 1995 but has been the subject of long delays. Hearings commenced before the Coroner on 3 April 2023. As a result of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, unless the Coroner had heard all the evidence in the inquest by 1 May 2024, she would be unable to make a final determination, verdict or findings.

One of the issues for consideration was whether security forces had received information from a covert human intelligence source (an informer) or other sensitive and secret information in connection with the deceased’s death. The Ministry of Defence and Police Service of Northern Ireland held documents relevant or potentially relevant to the factual issues within the scope of the inquest. However, the Secretary of State considered that disclosing those documents would be contrary to the public interest in protecting national security, in particular because it would be contrary to the policy of neither confirming nor denying the use of informers or other secret sources of information. The Secretary of State therefore claimed that PII attached to the relevant documents. The Chief Constable of Northern Ireland supported that claim.

The Coroner determined that a gist of the seventh document (“Folder 7”) should be disclosed and admitted as evidence in the inquest (“gist 1”). The Secretary of State and the Chief Constable challenge this decision by judicial review in the High Court. The High Court upheld the Coroner’s decision.

After debate with the Chief Constable, the Coroner then issued a new judgment that a revised gist of Folder 7 (“gist 2”) should be disclosed, superseding gist 1. The Chief Constable accepted the Coroner’s decision to issue gist 2, but the Secretary of State challenged this decision by judicial review in the High Court. The High Court again upheld the Coroner’s decision.

The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal. By a majority, the Court of Appeal (Keegan LCJ and Horner LJ; McCloskey LJ dissenting) dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

The issue is:

What is the correct test to be applied when a court judicially reviews a decision by a coroner to disclose gists of information over which Public Interest Immunity (“PII”) is asserted by a Minister on behalf of the Crown?

More information is available on our website