The inquest into the death of 14-year-old schoolboy Noah Donohoe has heard detailed expert evidence addressing issues of public safety, risk assessment, and the doctrine of foreseeability in relation to access to a stormwater culvert in north Belfast. The proceedings, conducted before a jury at Belfast Coroner’s Court, have entered an advanced evidential phase, with particular scrutiny placed upon whether the relevant authorities ought reasonably to have identified and mitigated risks associated with the site.
Noah Donohoe, a pupil at St Malachy’s College, was reported missing after leaving his home on a bicycle in June 2020. His body was discovered six days later within a culvert at Linear Park. A post-mortem examination determined that the cause of death was consistent with drowning. The inquest has since focused on the circumstances surrounding his entry into the culvert and whether any systemic failures contributed to the fatal outcome.
Expert Witness Evidence
The court heard from multiple expert witnesses, including a risk assessment specialist and a consulting civil engineer, whose evidence was directed toward the accessibility of the culvert and the adequacy of safety measures in place at the material time.
Dr Mark Cooper
Specialism: Risk Assessment and Public Safety
Qualifications and Experience
Dr Cooper is an experienced risk assessment practitioner, typically holding advanced academic qualifications in engineering, environmental risk, or safety management. His professional background includes the evaluation of public infrastructure hazards, preparation of risk assessments for governmental and commercial entities, and provision of expert opinion in legal proceedings concerning safety compliance and hazard identification.
Duties to the Court
Consistent with established principles governing expert evidence, Dr Cooper’s overriding duty was to assist the coroner impartially, providing an objective assessment of whether the culvert constituted a foreseeable risk to public safety. His role required him to evaluate the physical environment, access points, and potential hazards independent of the tragic outcome.
Findings
Dr Cooper expressed the view that he was “quite certain” the culvert presented a public safety issue, irrespective of hindsight. He emphasised that, had he conducted a site inspection prior to the incident, he would have been “alert” to the risk posed by the apparent accessibility of the structure.
A key element of his evidence was the observation that an adult individual had been photographed passing through the culvert’s protective bars. In his opinion, this demonstrated that physical access was not merely theoretical but practically achievable. He maintained that such evidence, taken together with the layout of the surrounding environment—particularly residential properties backing onto the area—would have placed a reasonable authority on notice of potential public access.
Dr Cooper rejected the suggestion that his conclusions were materially influenced by hindsight bias. He asserted that the configuration of the site, viewed objectively, gave rise to a foreseeable risk that individuals, including members of the public or those with adjacent land access, could enter the culvert.
Brian Pope
Specialism: Civil Engineering / Infrastructure Safety
Qualifications and Experience
Mr Pope is a civil engineer with professional experience in the design, maintenance, and risk evaluation of infrastructure, including drainage systems and culverts. Such experts typically hold accredited engineering degrees and are members of recognised professional bodies, with experience in applying safety standards to public works.
Duties to the Court
Mr Pope’s role was to provide technical insight into the design and operational risks associated with culvert systems, including comparative risk analysis and structural considerations. His duty was to assist the court in understanding whether the physical features of the culvert gave rise to a foreseeable hazard.
Findings
Mr Pope acknowledged the potential for hindsight bias in evaluating the circumstances of the case. He indicated that he had consciously sought to mitigate such bias by analysing the scenario from multiple perspectives.
When questioned regarding comparable incidents, he stated that he was not aware of specific analogous cases within the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. Although reference was made to other incidents involving individuals becoming trapped against culvert screens, he noted that those cases appeared to involve entrapment rather than access into the culvert itself, and he did not have sufficient detail to draw direct comparisons.
On the issue of relative risk, Mr Pope did not provide statistical evidence to support the proposition that one form of hazard—such as entrapment against a screen—was more likely to result in fatality than another, such as ingress into the culvert. His evidence remained cautious and grounded in the limits of available data.
Legal Issues: Foreseeability and Knowledge
A central issue arising from the expert evidence concerns whether the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) had, or ought to have had, knowledge of the risk posed by the culvert. Counsel for the department advanced the position that there was no evidence of habitual public access to the site prior to the incident.
Dr Cooper challenged this assertion, arguing that the absence of recorded incidents or complaints does not negate the existence of a foreseeable risk. He emphasised that risk assessment must be informed not only by historical data but also by objective evaluation of the environment, including access points, surrounding land use, and the physical characteristics of the structure.
The coroner, Mr Justice Rooney, noted the divergence between the department’s position—namely, that it lacked knowledge of public access—and Dr Cooper’s opinion that such access ought reasonably to have been anticipated. This exchange underscores the broader legal tension between actual knowledge and constructive knowledge in the context of public safety obligations.
Digital Evidence: Online Activity and Expert Interpretation
The inquest also received evidence concerning the deceased’s digital footprint in the period immediately preceding his disappearance. The court was informed that a forensic review of the schoolboy’s electronic communications and online activity had been undertaken by a specialist digital expert.
Simon Young
Specialism: Digital Forensics and Online Behaviour Analysis
Qualifications and Experience: Mr Young is a practitioner in digital forensics, typically possessing specialist training in the recovery and analysis of electronic data, including social media activity, browser histories, and communication records. Experts in this field commonly have experience in evidential integrity, data reconstruction, and the presentation of technical findings in legal proceedings.
Duties to the Court
In accordance with established principles governing expert evidence, Mr Young’s overriding duty was to assist the coroner by providing an objective and impartial analysis of the deceased’s digital activity. His role was not to speculate, but to interpret the data within a forensic and behavioural context.
Findings
The court heard that the deceased had conducted a series of internet searches in the early hours prior to his disappearance. These searches included references to biblical themes and terminology, such as queries relating to scripture and the narrative of Cain and Abel.
Additional search activity on the day in question included references to Christianity, repentance, and the rejection of Satan. The timing and content of these searches were examined in detail.
However, Mr Young concluded that the material did not give rise to any evidential concern. In his professional assessment, the searches were consistent with ordinary adolescent curiosity and fell within the event of typical online behaviour for a young person of that age. He further characterised the broader pattern of digital interaction as reflective of normal social engagement with peers.
When challenged in examination, the expert agreed that there was nothing within the digital record to suggest abnormal or alarming behaviour, nor any indication that the online activity was causally connected to the events leading to the deceased’s death.
Evidential Significance
This aspect of the evidence illustrates the importance of contextualising digital data within an appropriate behavioural framework. While certain search terms may appear unusual in isolation, the expert’s analysis emphasised the necessity of avoiding speculative inference and instead grounding conclusions in established patterns of user behaviour.
The evidence of Mr Young therefore served to exclude the deceased’s online activity as a factor of material significance in the circumstances under investigation, reinforcing the principle that correlation does not, in itself, establish causation.
Hindsight Bias and Evidential Weight
Both experts were questioned extensively on the concept of hindsight bias. The legal principle recognises the risk that, following a tragic event, assessments of risk may be influenced by knowledge of the outcome rather than the conditions as they existed at the time.
Dr Cooper maintained that his conclusions were not dependent on the fatal event but were instead grounded in the observable features of the site. Mr Pope, while acknowledging the risk of retrospective distortion, emphasised the importance of objective analysis and the limitations of available comparative data.
Ultimately, the inquest must determine whether the relevant authorities discharged their duty to identify and mitigate foreseeable dangers, or whether the tragic outcome arose in circumstances that could not reasonably have been anticipated. The resolution of this question will depend heavily on the weight accorded to the expert evidence and its application within the established legal framework governing causation and duty of care.
The inquiry continues...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_forensics
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
