McKearney & Ors, Application for Judicial Review [2026] NIKB 9 (03 March 2026)

Executive summary

The High Court in Northern Ireland heard four joined applications for leave to seek judicial review, each seeking mandatory orders requiring the Secretary of State to establish a public inquiry into Troubles-era deaths. The judgment mainly sets out the factual background, explains that each case involved prior inquests complicated or closed by public interest immunity and national security-sensitive material, and notes that the Secretary of State argued the applications should be stayed or adjourned pending the Supreme Court decision in Re Dillon.

Key points

• Applicants: Bernadette McKearney, Anthony Fox, Linda Hewitt, and Raymond McCord, each seeking a public inquiry into a family member's death
• Core issue: whether the Secretary of State should be compelled to establish public inquiries after inquests were closed or effectively blocked by PII and national-security material
• Reasoning described: the current law in Northern Ireland appeared to make the applications arguable, but the Secretary of State said Re Dillon may change the law materially
• Fox/McKearney and Hewitt: coroner concluded PII materials prevented full, fair, and fearless investigation within the inquest scope
• McCord: inquest was closed under section 16A of the Coroners (NI) Act 1959 as inserted by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none identified in the text; the national-security relevance is tied to disclosure, PII, and sensitive state material rather than sanctions

Why it matters

The case is relevant to sovereign-risk and national-security audiences because it concerns how state secrecy and PII can impede fact-finding into alleged collusion, covert surveillance, and other security-force involvement in Troubles killings. It also shows that legacy accountability litigation may be shaped by higher-court developments, here the pending Re Dillon decision.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the judgment signals that public-inquiry claims arising from closed or compromised inquests can remain live where national-security material blocks completion of coronial processes. Parties should expect argument over stay/adjournment pending appellate clarity, and state respondents may rely on forthcoming precedent to resist or defer compelled-inquiry relief.