Bid to compel ex-ministers’ testimony at Muckamore inquiry rejected

A legal effort to compel the Muckamore Abbey Hospital Inquiry to summon past health ministers for testimony has been unsuccessful. A High Court judge rejected a judicial review application on Friday, stating that the court’s function does not include “micro-manage[ing]” the procedural choices of public inquiries. Mr Justice Humphreys declared that the choice not to summon any former health ministers to provide testimony at the public inquiry investigating the alleged mistreatment of patients at Muckamore Abbey Hospital was procedurally equitable. He dismissed assertions from relatives of certain former patients who contended that the tribunal offered insufficient justifications and violated human rights obligations by not requesting evidence from these political figures. In rejecting all bases for the challenge, he stated: “The applicants have not established any arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.” The ongoing public inquiry is investigating occurrences at the County Antrim hospital, which caters to adults with special needs, spanning the years 1999 to 2021. Former Health Minister Robin Swann initiated the inquiry after a significant police investigation into allegations of vulnerable patients enduring ill-treatment at Muckamore Abbey. A total of fifteen individuals are currently facing prosecution linked to the criminal investigation. Glynn Brown, who serves as a spokesman for a campaign group dedicated to uncovering abuse, initiated the judicial review proceedings. Mr. Brown’s son, Aaron, aged 28, was previously a patient at Muckamore and now receives care at private facilities located in Belfast. Brigene McNeilly, whose brother Bryan McCarry resided in the hospital for over 30 years, also participated in the legal challenge. Their aim was to overturn a decision that excluded summoning any of the seven political representatives who held the position of health minister in Northern Ireland during the specified timeframe to give evidence concerning resource allocation. Instead, inquiry chairman Tom Kark KC concluded that testimony from former permanent secretaries Andrew McCormick and Richard Pengelly, who occupied roles within the department of health at various times between 2005 and 2022, would satisfy the inquiry’s terms of reference. Legal representatives for the families contended that the senior civil servants could not serve as replacements for the ministers. They asserted that the decision lacked proper explanation, was procedurally unjust, and violated investigative duties mandated by Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, Mr Justice Humphreys stated that no evidence was presented to show any prejudice. The judge maintained: “The reasons given were entirely intelligible and adequate.” He further added: “It is wholly unarguable to contend that the failure to call between one and seven ministers of health to give evidence to a public inquiry could infringe the state’s investigative obligation.” The final results of both the inquiry and the criminal prosecutions remain pending. He concluded: “There is simply no basis to say that the inquiry is lacking in any of the characteristics of independence, effectiveness and public scrutiny.” Additional challenges, concerning decisions not to summon a consultant psychiatrist for testimony and to mandate closing submissions prior to obtaining more details on resettlement plans, were also dismissed. Mr Justice Humphreys characterized the explanations offered as “simple and intelligible,” noting that the tribunal’s handling of resettlement issues fell within its discretionary powers. In rejecting the legal proceedings, he stated: “The applicants and their advisors may profoundly disagree with the decisions made in the course of the inquiry, but this founds no basis to seek the court’s intervention by way of judicial review.” Responding to the comprehensive dismissal of challenges against the Muckamore Abbey Hospital Inquiry, inquiry chair Tom Kark KC remarked: “We welcome that the court has dismissed, on all grounds, challenges to the Muckamore Abbey Hospital Inquiry.” He added: “The conclusions reached by the court find that the work and decision making of the inquiry in respect of these issues has been lawful and rational.” Mr Kark indicated that the inquiry’s subsequent phase involves listening to “closing statements by core participants,” enabling the panel to “progress the writing of the report and making recommendations to ensure the learning-disabled community in Northern Ireland is safe and well cared for.”