Transfer of decision on INLA chief's murder inquest to UK's top law officer was justified on grounds of national security

Mr Justice Scoffield held that the existence of sensitive information meant the Secretary of State was legally bound to refer the murder of Ronnie Bunting to the Attorney General for England and Wales.

He dismissed a challenge by the victim’s widow who claimed consideration on whether to order a fresh inquest should remain with Northern Ireland’s Attorney General.

Bunting was shot dead in October 1980 by loyalist paramilitaries in an attack involving suspected state collusion.

UDA gunmen opened fire at his home in Downfine Gardens, west Belfast, killing both him and associate Noel Little.

The son of a major in the British Army, Bunting had been a founding member of the INLA after becoming involved in Irish republicanism during the early 1970s.

His wife, Suzanne, was also badly wounded, sustaining bullet wounds to her neck, arm and hand in the shooting.

In 2016 a newspaper reported claims that an undercover RUC unit had been watching the property due to intelligence that Bunting's life was in danger.

The surveillance operation was allegedly withdrawn for unexplained reasons before the double murder.

According to papers in the case, the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC, had been considering whether to order a new inquest into the killing.

But in 2019 the then Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, transferred responsibility to the UK Government's chief legal adviser and Advocate General for Northern Ireland.

The move, taken under the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, was based on relevant information which it may be against the interests of national security to disclose.

Mrs Bunting opposes a member of the UK Government deciding on an inquest because of the background to her husband’s killing.

Her lawyers claimed there was no discretion and insufficient material for the Secretary of State to issue a certificate for the transfer of responsibility.

Amid concerns about revealing sensitive documents, part of the case was heard in private.

An agreed gist of the closed material stated that the Secretary of State had been provided with a range of sensitive material, including intelligence relating specifically to Bunting and those suspected of killing him.

The material did not contain any reporting which showed the security forces had any pre-emptive intelligence that could have prevented the murder.

Ruling on the challenge, Mr Justice Scoffield said it was lawful for the Secretary of State to take the view that the conditions for transferring responsibility were met.

“There was information relevant to the question of whether a direction for a fresh inquest should be given which was or included information the disclosure of which may be against the interests of national security,” he pointed out.

Having examined the same material, the judge identified no legal error.

“On the contrary, certification appears to have been inevitable,” the judge added.

Dismissing Mrs Bunting’s challenge, he stated: “Once the Secretary of State has formed the view that such information exists and is relevant to the substantive question of whether a direction should be given, he or she is then bound to certify that fact, which has the consequence that the Advocate General then exercises the function which would otherwise fall to the Attorney General.”

Outside court the widow’s solicitor, Kevin Winters, described the verdict as “a very helpful route map on the way forward”.

Mr Winters added: “The sensitivities around this complex case are enormous.

“One option is to insist upon the Advocate General in England making a decision on our long outstanding application for an inquest into the killing of Ronnie Bunting.”