Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(a) Had the Inquiry Panel misdirected itself in law as to the correct test to be applied in the applicants' applications?
(b) Had the Inquiry Panel failed to discharge its duty of inquiry and/or failed to take relevant considerations into account by failing to seek or receive from the PSNI an individualised risk assessment in relation to each of the applicants?
(c) Had the Inquiry Panel reached it decisions in a procedurally unfair manner by failing to disclose to the applicants, in advance of its respective decisions, certain materials relied upon by the Panel?
(d) Had the Inquiry Panel misdirected itself in law and/or fact as to the meaning and effect of the reports published by the Independent Monitoring Commission?
That conversion decision was the subject of the challenge which Deeny J heard. He determined, inter alia, that the decision to convert the Inquiry into one under the 2005 legislation was unlawful. It is against that background that the ongoing proceedings were heard and the impugned decisions now under consideration determined.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.