Muckamore: Call for former ministers to give evidence fails

But Mr Justice Humphreys said there was no evidence to demonstrate any prejudice.

“The reasons given were entirely intelligible and adequate,” the judge held.

“It is wholly unarguable to contend that the failure to call between one and seven ministers of health to give evidence to a public inquiry could infringe the state’s investigative obligation.

“The outcomes of the inquiry and the criminal prosecutions are not yet known.

“There is simply no basis to say that the inquiry is lacking in any of the characteristics of independence, effectiveness and public scrutiny.”

Challenges to further decisions not to call a consultant psychiatrist to give evidence, and to require closing submissions before receiving further information about resettlement plans were also rejected.

Mr Justice Humphreys described explanations provided as “simple and intelligible”, adding that how the tribunal dealt with resettlement was a matter of discretion.

Dismissing the legal action, he said: “The applicants and their advisors may profoundly disagree with the decisions made in the course of the inquiry, but this founds no basis to seek the court’s intervention by way of judicial review.”