UK Supreme Court reserves judgment in appeal over public inquiry into Sean Brown murder

The appeal in London

The British government is challenging rulings from Belfast courts that compelled it to hold a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown, 61, chairman of Bellaghy Wolfe Tones Gaelic Athletic Club in County Londonderry. Submissions were made on Tuesday, 27 October, before a five-member court in London, and the justices have reserved their judgment, so a ruling will follow later. Brown was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries on the night of 12 May 1997 as he locked the gates of the club. He was driven about 10 miles to Randallstown, shot six times, and his body was later found inside a car that had been burnt out. No one has ever been charged with his murder.

How the case reached the Supreme Court

The coroner in Northern Ireland said in March 2024 that he could not proceed with the inquest, because material was being withheld on national security grounds. Preliminary inquest proceedings that year heard that more than 25 people had been linked by intelligence to the killing, including several state agents. The coroner then asked the Northern Ireland Secretary for a public inquiry. The High Court in Belfast ruled in December 2024 that one should be set up, and the Court of Appeal later called the government's refusal unlawful in April 2025. The government took the matter to the Supreme Court, which led to Tuesday's hearing.

The government's position and the ICRIR

The government accepts that there has been no adequate investigation into the death. In 2024, the then-Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn decided that the matter should instead go to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) without a public inquiry. Sir James Eadie KC, appearing for the Northern Ireland Office, argued that the Belfast decision rested on the same basis the Supreme Court found to be in error in a May ruling in another case, which held the commission capable of an investigation that did not diminish victims' rights. He told the court:

“That should be the end of this appeal.”

The family's case

Des Fahy KC, representing the Brown family, told the court about the people who have seen the sensitive material.

“There is a discreet and identifiable cohort of individuals who have seen sensitive material in this case,”

he said. Fahy argued that the Secretary of State, the appellant in the case, was the only one in that group who had seen the material and did not conclude that a public inquiry with a closed material procedure was needed to meet the state's Article 2 obligation. Outside court, Brown's daughter Clare Loughran said:

“The Government are still in a state of illegality.”

She said the family sees two options: a public inquiry, which she called the right and best option, or a referral to the ICRIR, which the family will not accept. Her sister Siobhan Brown told supporters it had been a long battle and that the family would not give up. Their mother, Bridie Brown, 89, could not attend but followed the hearing by video link. Solicitor Niall Murphy called it disgraceful that the family had been brought to court and said only a public inquiry would satisfy them.