Coroner urged not to read judgment quashing inquest findings in riot death case

Thomas Friel died of head injuries sustained during rioting in Londonderry in May 1973 (Friel family/PA)

A coroner presiding over the case of a man who died after a riot is to consider the appropriateness of reading a court judgment that quashed a previous inquest’s findings.

Thomas Friel, 21, died in hospital in May 1973 four days after sustaining head injuries during rioting in the Creggan area of Derry.

In 2021, a coroner said he was not satisfied Mr Friel had been struck by a rubber baton round fired by British soldiers.

Coroner Joe McCrisken found that the young man was likely to have been struck by masonry during an altercation between youths and soldiers, which caused him to fall and sustain a further injury.

Following a judicial review challenge by Mr Friel’s family, last year a High Court judge quashed that ruling, citing legal flaws in how the findings of fact were reached, and directed that a new inquest be held.

County court judge Mark Reel is presiding over the new coronial probe.

At a preliminary hearing in Belfast on Wednesday, the issue of whether the judge should read both the original coroner’s findings and the subsequent High Court judgment was discussed.

A lawyer representing the Ministry of Defence said its position was that neither should be read by the coroner ahead of the new inquest.

Counsel for the coroner Michael Chambers concurred with that view.

“I have to say, I don’t think that your honour should read either of those in advance of this hearing,” he said.

Mr Chambers said in other cases involving the direction of new inquests it was not practice for the coroner to read the judgments that quashed original findings, given they would likely include criticisms of those findings.

David Heraghty, representing the next of kin, said the only issue of controversy related to the High Court judgment.

He said the coroner was required to apply laws that were set out in the judgment so, as a consequence, suggested it would be appropriate for him to read it.

Judge Reel said one approach could see him read particular sections of the judgment that referred to points of law.

“If there is particular direction or guidance provided in the judicial review ruling that you are concerned about, it would be possible to deal with that, I would have thought, perhaps by way of identifying the issue or identifying the paragraph within the ruling,” he said.

The judge asked the legal representatives to consider whether they would be content with that approach.

The next preliminary hearing was set for February 8.