Thompson, Re Application for Judicial Review (Rev1) [2025] NICA 25 (13 May 2025)

Executive summary

The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland considered whether a coroner, after closing an inquest, could lawfully revisit an anonymity order protecting “Soldier D” following findings that he had unlawfully shot Kathleen Thompson’s mother. The judgment addresses the scope of a coroner’s post-closure powers, including whether the coroner was functus officio and whether anonymity could still be reconsidered after the inquest was formally closed.

Key points

• Applicant: William Thompson; respondent: Coroners Service for Northern Ireland; notice party: Ministry of Defence.
• Background: Soldier D had been anonymised during the inquest because of assessed risk to life; the coroner later found he had shot the deceased in unjustified circumstances.
• High Court held the coroner erred by failing to reconsider anonymity after making those findings, but also held she was functus officio when the request was made.
• The judge refused relief because the coroner had indicated anonymity would have remained in place anyway.
• The source text also sets out Rule 5 of the 1963 Rules, allowing exclusion of the public where national security requires it, and section 35(3) of the 2002 Act, requiring a report to the DPP where an offence may have been committed.
• No sanctions or export-control issue is identified in the text; the national-security content is confined to the inquest confidentiality framework.

Why it matters

The decision matters for state-security and defense-related inquests because it tests how far anonymity and screening protections can persist after adverse findings against a witness or former soldier. For sovereign-risk and enforcement audiences, it shows how post-inquest procedural rules can shape exposure of state personnel and the timing of criminal referral decisions.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the case underscores the importance of raising anonymity and other protective issues before an inquest is formally closed, because functus officio arguments may foreclose later reconsideration. It also suggests that where an inquest produces findings potentially indicating an offence, coroner-driven DPP referral under section 35(3) can proceed separately from the anonymity question, so parties should treat the two issues as distinct procedural tracks.