Drake, Application for Judicial Review [2025] NIKB 70 (12 December 2025)

Executive summary

This judicial review concerns a coroner’s use of section 17A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 to require Margaret Drake to produce an expert report by Dr Husain that she had commissioned for an inquest into the death of Stephen Moore. The judgment sets out the procedural history and statutory framework, including the coroner’s earlier refusal to revoke the notice, but the provided text does not include the court’s final determination on the challenge.

Key points

• Applicant: Margaret Drake, the deceased’s next of kin and a properly interested person in the inquest.
• Respondent/notice party: the Coroners Service; Belfast Health & Social Care Trust was also a notice party.
• Issue: whether the coroner could compel production of a privately commissioned expert report under section 17A of the 1959 Act.
• Context: the inquest concerns Stephen Moore’s death after a fall, hospital admission, and later death by hanging/self-inflicted wrist injury as described in the post-mortem material.
• Reasoning shown in the text: the coroner considered the report relevant to the inquest and issued a production notice; the applicant relied on Re Ketcher and Mitchell to resist disclosure.
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none apparent; the case is about inquest disclosure powers, not sanctions, export controls, or national security.

Why it matters

The decision is relevant to risk and compliance because it confirms that Northern Ireland coroners can seek production of privately held expert material in contested inquests, including where a family or other interested party prefers not to rely on it. It has no direct sanctions or national-security content, but it matters for litigation control over sensitive evidence and for the ability of public authorities to compel disclosure.

Implications

For inquest and public-law litigation, parties cannot assume that commissioned expert reports will remain confidential if a coroner considers them relevant and invokes section 17A. The practical lesson is to anticipate potential compulsion at the commissioning stage, because resisting disclosure may require prompt judicial review and can affect hearing timing and strategy.