THE public inquiry into alleged abuse at Muckamore Abbey Hospital is not to be suspended until criminal proceedings against one of those accused of wrongdoing are concluded, a High Court judge has ruled.
A former member of staff at the facilities in Co Antrim challenged Health Minister Robin Swann for refusing to put the ongoing tribunal on hold, pending the outcome of her prosecution.
Lawyers for the woman, who has been granted anonymity, claimed publicity surrounding the hearings would prejudice her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
But Mr Justice Colton ruled that those fears were speculative and insufficient to establish a breach of her legal protections.
Dismissing her application for judicial review, he said: "The applicant's Article 6 rights in respect of her criminal trial are fully protected within the criminal trial process."
Muckamore Abbey is at the centre of the largest-ever police investigation into allegations that vulnerable patients were subjected to ill-treatment. More than 70 members of staff have been suspended as a precaution, at least 34 people arrested and eight facing charges.
Referred to as JR 222, the woman at the centre of the legal action faces multiple counts of alleged abuse at the hospital during dates in 2017. She is contesting all of the charges against her and has not yet been returned for trial at the Crown Court.
With the public inquiry set to resume next week, JR 222' legal representatives argued that press coverage and social media comments could "poison" the criminal proceedings.
Counsel for the woman argued that Mr Swann misdirected himself and applied the wrong legal test when considering whether it was necessary to suspend hearings under the Inquiries Act 2005.
The decision taken by the minister in June was irrational, unfair and breached his client's Article 6 right to a fair trial under European law, he alleged.
However, the Department of Health's lawyers insisted the challenge was premature when possible alternative remedies and safeguards will be available at any trial. The court was told steps have been taken along with police and prosecutors to protect the integrity of the criminal process.
Concerns were also expressed that the public inquiry could be stymied for years to come, and may even never be able to resume, if JR 222 succeeded in securing a suspension.
Backing those submissions, Mr Justice Colton identified no evidence of a virulent media campaign against her, and that any "toxic" social media commentary is limited to a tiny minority of the population.
He also pointed out that neither a trial date nor a jury have been established.
"The applicant's fears are speculative and not sufficient to establish a breach of article 6," the judge held.
"The impartiality of a jury must be presumed unless there is proof to the contrary. The applicant's article 6 rights in respect of her criminal trial are fully protected within the criminal trial process."
Rejecting all grounds of challenge, the judge confirmed: "I am satisfied that the minister has applied the correct test."
