Muckamore Abbey Hospital: Bid to suspend public inquiry dismissed

A legal bid to suspend the public inquiry into alleged abuse at Muckamore Abbey hospital has been dismissed by a High court judge.

The applicant in the case has been granted anonymity.

They challenged Health Minister Robin Swann's refusal to suspend the public inquiry until criminal proceedings against them had concluded.

Lawyers argued that the applicant's article six right to a fair trail had been jeopardised.

The applicant's lawyers cited "adverse and prejudicial" commentary already in the media.

'Speculative'

Rejecting the application the judge, Mr Justice Colton, said that the applicant's article six rights were fully protected within the criminal trial process.

"The applicant has not yet been returned for trial in the Crown Court, the judge said.

"No trial date has been set. No jury has been empanelled; the applicant's fears are speculative and not sufficient to establish a breach of article six.

"The fairness, or otherwise, of any trial can only be judged at the relevant time and by the trial judge. The court, therefore, concludes, that no breach of the applicant's article six rights has been established."

The judge referred to submissions from the applicant's legal team who had argued that if the inquiry recommences as planned this month, it would consider evidence reported by the media which could affect the ability of a jury to act impartially.

The judge told the court there was nothing to suggest that there had been a "virulent media campaign" about the applicant.

• Apology for 'appalling behaviour' at hospital

• Swann apologises for 'failure of care' at Muckamore

• Muckamore victims 'denied chance to lead best lives'

He added that while it was correct that "some of the social media commentary is typically toxic it should be put in the context reflecting as it does the views of a very tiny minority of the general population".

"The essential point is that the applicant is entitled to and can expect a fair trial.

"The impartiality of a jury must be presumed unless there is proof to the contrary."

The court also heard how a Memorandum of Understanding was in place which provided for continuing co-operation between the Inquiry, Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) allowing the Inquiry to keep the question of potential impact of a criminal prosecution under review.

"It is clear that the Inquiry is expressly addressing the fact that the criminal prosecution in relation to the applicant is running parallel to the Inquiry and has put in place detailed safeguards to ensure that its work does not impede, impact adversely on or jeopardise the criminal proceedings," he added.

The senior judge told the court further steps taken by the inquiry included an undertaking by the Director of Public Prosecutions that "no evidence drafted for the purpose of giving evidence to the Inquiry will be used in evidence against them in any criminal proceedings or for the purpose of deciding whether to bring such proceedings".

The application for judicial review was dismissed.