Mr. P?draig ? Muirigh:

I thank Mr. Molloy for his questions and I will start with the second question on the interstate case timeline.

Families must make an application within four months of either the passing of the Act or a decision by the highest court within that jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the judicial review, if we go to the supreme court, it would be four months from the date of any decision of the court. However, the Irish Government is not involved in that litigation and one of the arguments for it to act more promptly is that it does not need to await the outcome of the supreme court and can go to the European Court of Human Rights within these four months. Presumably, therefore, the Irish Government should act on this before 18 January.

I should say that that there are some discussions among lawyers and families at the minute where the families may also proceed to the European Court of Justice in advance of any supreme court decision based on the fact that it could be argued that the outcome of the judicial review may not be an effective remedy for families. I highlighted in my opening remarks that the judicial review had limitations in that any declaration of incompatibility was not a coercive direction to Parliament but, rather, was a signal. That signal could be ignored and is probably likely to be ignored by the current British Government. There might be an argument that families can also go to the European Court of Human Rights in advance of any supreme court decision and we are looking at that. It is imperative, regardless of any decisions made by families, that the Irish Government takes this case in any event.

On Mr. Molloy's first question on the PSNI, I believe it was directed at the PSNI and its interactions with the coronial process. There is a long-standing issue with both the PSNI and the Ministry of Defence, MOD, who are wilfully obstructing and delaying inquests and, in particular, the disclosure process. This is a particular problem now. Because of this new legislation, we are trying to advance as many inquests as possible before the guillotine date of 1 May 2024. This has meant more pressure at all ends; on families, legal representatives, on the court service and on those agencies that are required to provide disclosure and assist the inquest, including the PSNI. We have found in recent weeks and months that there have been considerable delays on the part of PSNI sticking to deadlines set by the court on the production of materials which have been directed of the PSNI.

In the view of the families, this is part of a long game and of an attempt to run the clock down. As the committee members may well be aware, if these inquests do not conclude by 1 May, they will not be allowed to continue. A cynical view might be that it is in the interests of certain parties to delay matters and effectively to derail the inquests. These cases will then be put into the ICRIR, which is a much less attractive investigation and I would not even call it an investigation, for a review of these matters. Families are quite cynical about that approach.

Jon Boutcher, on his appointment, made some commentary about legacy and perhaps about dealing with this issue, but will we will have to see how that plays out. There is a real urgency on the PSNI and, indeed, on the MOD to co-operate with the coroners and with the deadlines set by them.