Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
6 SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT<br />
27. On 26 January 1995, <strong>the</strong> applicant accepted <strong>the</strong> sum of 25,520<br />
pounds sterling from <strong>the</strong> Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in respect<br />
of <strong>the</strong> death of her son.<br />
C. <strong>The</strong> inquest<br />
28. An inquest into <strong>the</strong> killing was opened on 26 March 1996, over four<br />
and a half years after <strong>the</strong> murder. <strong>The</strong> RUC file had been transmitted to <strong>the</strong><br />
Coroner on 14 January 1994. <strong>The</strong> delay in <strong>the</strong>ir inquiries resulted, according<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Government, from <strong>the</strong> extent of o<strong>the</strong>r criminal activities requiring<br />
police attention in <strong>the</strong> Castlederg area at that time. <strong>The</strong> inquest was fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />
delayed to February 1996 pending <strong>the</strong> completion of fur<strong>the</strong>r inquiries<br />
required by <strong>the</strong> Coroner.<br />
29. No explanation was given to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Shanaghan</strong> family to account for <strong>the</strong><br />
delay. During this period, <strong>the</strong> family had not known whe<strong>the</strong>r any murder<br />
investigation had been conducted by <strong>the</strong> police and were not provided with<br />
any indication as to <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> RUC’s findings, if any, as to how <strong>the</strong><br />
applicant’s son had died.<br />
30. <strong>The</strong> inquest was heard over six days, between 26 March and 20 June<br />
1996. It was presided over by <strong>the</strong> Coroner who sat with a jury and was<br />
assisted by a lawyer. <strong>The</strong> RUC were represented by counsel and a solicitor.<br />
31. During <strong>the</strong> inquest, <strong>the</strong> solicitor acting for <strong>the</strong> family of <strong><strong>Pat</strong>rick</strong><br />
<strong>Shanaghan</strong> sought to introduce evidence in support of allegations that <strong>the</strong><br />
RUC had prior knowledge that he was to be murdered, that <strong>the</strong> RUC had<br />
made threats against him and that <strong>the</strong> police investigation had been<br />
inadequate. This consisted of evidence from a forensic science consultant<br />
who criticised <strong>the</strong> RUC for not taking a plaster-cast of car tyre impressions<br />
found at <strong>the</strong> scene of <strong>the</strong> crime, and <strong>the</strong> oral testimony of D.C. who claimed<br />
to have been told by <strong><strong>Pat</strong>rick</strong> <strong>Shanaghan</strong> of threats to his life made by RUC<br />
officers and who had heard such threats made by officers when he himself<br />
was in custody. When <strong>the</strong> Coroner accepted that <strong>the</strong> evidence should be<br />
admitted, <strong>the</strong> RUC Chief Constable applied for judicial review of those<br />
decisions. On 18 June 1996, <strong>the</strong> High Court quashed <strong>the</strong> Coroner’s decision,<br />
holding that:<br />
“... it is now well-settled in <strong>the</strong> jurisprudence on this topic that a Coroner’s function<br />
is not, and one may say emphatically not, to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into <strong>the</strong><br />
broad circumstances in which a deceased has met his death. It is now clearly<br />
established by <strong>the</strong> decisions to which I have referred that <strong>the</strong> word “how” should<br />
receive <strong>the</strong> connotation “by what means” and it seems to me ... that it cannot be <strong>the</strong><br />
case that <strong>the</strong> evidence in relation to <strong>the</strong> calibre of <strong>the</strong> police investigation - <strong>the</strong> quality<br />
of <strong>the</strong> police investigation – touches upon <strong>the</strong> means by which Mr. <strong>Shanaghan</strong> was<br />
killed. Ra<strong>the</strong>r it is directly relevant to <strong>the</strong> possible criticism of <strong>the</strong> standard of <strong>the</strong><br />
police investigation and that ... goes well beyond <strong>the</strong> scope of <strong>the</strong> inquiry of <strong>the</strong><br />
Coroner. By <strong>the</strong> same token I consider that <strong>the</strong> evidence ... from Mr [D.C.] ... is not<br />
germane to <strong>the</strong> question which <strong>the</strong> Coroner and <strong>the</strong> jury must decide and that is by