Northern Ireland's Court of Appeal has dismissed a bid by Teresa Jordan, mother of Pearse Jordan, to challenge a Public Prosecution Service decision not to prosecute two police officers in connection with events surrounding her son's death in 1992. The panel, comprising Lady Chief Justice Keegan, Lord Justice Colton and Justice Fowler, refused leave for judicial review and indicated it would have dismissed the case on its full merits in any event.

Pearse Jordan was shot dead by an officer, identified in proceedings as Officer A, on 25 November 1992 in Belfast. The RUC had deployed military surveillance and HMSU officers at Arizona Street that afternoon following intelligence of a suspected movement of explosives or arms by the Provisional IRA. Jordan ran from a red Ford Orion after it was forced off the road and was shot at approximately 16:30 hrs. A timer and power unit, capable of use in under-car booby trap devices, was subsequently found in the area.

At a 2016 inquest, the coroner found strong evidence of terrorist activity but was unable to conclude whether the use of lethal force was justified due to the passage of time. He found that the PSNI had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the use of lethal force. Critically, the coroner also found that Officers M and Q had likely removed entries from the HMSU logbook made before 17:03 hrs and had given untruthful and contradictory evidence at the inquest. He referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The PPS declined to prosecute in October 2023. Teresa Jordan successfully challenged that decision by judicial review, and the matter was sent back to the PPS. A further no-prosecution decision followed in April 2024, on the grounds of insufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction. That decision was upheld on internal PPS review in March 2025 and formed the basis of the current proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the coroner's findings against Officers M and Q were subject to a material caveat: he had proceeded under the mistaken belief that some HMSU logs were missing, when in fact those logs had been made available to the applicant's solicitor prior to the inquest and shared following a public interest immunity process. The court said this error meant the strength of the coroner's conclusions had to be reassessed, and noted that the PPS, unlike the coroner, had considered the full set of logs.

The court examined three main grounds of challenge. First, it found that the PPS had considered all relevant material, including military surveillance logs, and that no arguable case could be made that material considerations had been left out of account. Second, on the question of whether Officers M and Q should have been interviewed under caution, the court accepted the PPS position that detailed inquest transcripts provided sufficient existing evidence and that further questioning was unlikely to produce material capable of supporting a prosecution. Third, the court assessed whether the decision was irrational. It concluded the PPS analysis was comprehensive and that the available evidence amounted to supposition rather than actual knowledge or recall about whether earlier log entries had existed and been destroyed. Additional material from the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland supported the view that neither officer appeared to have committed a criminal or misconduct offence, and a police report concluded that no documents suggested earlier HMSU logs had existed but been destroyed or withheld.

While the court criticised the PPS for not considering the full body of evidence at an earlier stage, it said this failing was not determinative. It found the ultimate decision to be rational and lawful, noting that any prosecution would need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Leave for judicial review was refused and the application dismissed.