Drake, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NICA 17 (24 April 2026)

Executive summary

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland heard Margaret Drake’s appeal in judicial review proceedings challenging Coroner Toal’s notice requiring production of Dr Hussain’s expert report for an inquest into Stephen Moore’s death. The appeal focused on whether the coroner had applied the correct section 17A process and the guidance in Ketcher and Mitchell when refusing to revoke the notice.

Key points

• Parties: Margaret Drake (appellant/next of kin), Coroner Toal (respondent), and Belfast Health and Social Care Trust as notice party.
• Underlying proceeding: an inquest into the death of Stephen Moore, which the court said was not yet concluded.
• Disputed issue: the coroner required production of Dr Hussain’s report under section 17A of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959; Drake sought revocation of that notice.
• Appeal grounds: alleged wrong legal test, misapplication of Ketcher and Mitchell, and irrationality because the coroner already had two expert reports on the delirium issue.
• Statutory focus: section 17A disclosure powers and the public-interest assessment for requiring documents relevant to an inquest.
• No sanctions/export-control issue appears in the source text; the case is about coronial disclosure and judicial review.

Why it matters

This decision is relevant to compliance and litigation strategy because it confirms that inquest-related expert reports can be compelled under coronial disclosure powers, limiting attempts by interested persons to withhold material once an inquest is underway. It has no direct sanctions or export-control content, but it matters for broader sovereign-risk and public-law exposure in state-related investigations.

Implications

For parties in coronial proceedings, the case signals that private expert evidence obtained for inquest purposes may not be kept back if the coroner considers it relevant and the public interest favors disclosure. Practically, counsel should assume that strategic non-production of such reports will face close scrutiny under section 17A and should be prepared to address relevance, custody/control, and public-interest factors at the revocation stage.