Widow of 7/7 bomber refused legal aid for inquest

27 August 2010 by

Patel, R (on the application of) v Lord Chancellor [2010] EWHC 2220 (Admin) (27 August 2010) – Read judgment

The wife of the purported ringleader of the ‘7/7’ London bombings has failed in her judicial review of the Lord Chancellor’s decision to refuse her funding for legal representation at the inquest into the bombings.

Ms Sumaiya Patel, the former wife of Mohammed Sidique Khan, had her initial application for funding to the Lord Chancellor refused. She sought a ruling from the High Court to quash that decision.

There is no general right for funding for participation in an inquest, but section 6(8) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 allows the Lord Chancellor to authorise funding in “specific circumstances“. The Lord Chancellor’s guidance on the Act provides that when granting funding, the Legal Services Commission (which handles funding requests), should be satisfied that “[t]here is a significant wider public interest” and “Funded representation for the family of the deceased is likely to be necessary to enable the coroner to carry out an effective investigation into the death, as required by Article 2 of ECHR“.

Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the right to life, plays in important role in coroners’ inquests, as it places the state under an obligation not just to prevent deaths but also to investigate deaths that have occurred, in order to stop them happening again. This is often referred to in the investigative obligation, and it can extend to funding legal representation for the family members of those who have died to take part in inquests. This principle was demonstrated recently in the case of Humberstone, R (on the application of) v Legal Services Commission, where legal aid was eventually granted to the mother of a child who had died in hospital (see our post and a wider discussion on legal aid at inquests).

However, unlike Mrs Humberstone, Ms Patel’s judicial review attempt was rejected. The High Court began by emphasising that it considered the words “significant wider public interest” gave the Lord Chancellor a wide discretion. The threshold “is high because of the need for there to be not merely a potential of the proceedings to produce real benefits for individuals other than the client… but that the benefits must be substantial”.

The application for funding was also put firmly in the context that the families of the 7/7 victims would all be represented at the coming hearing.

Ultimately, the court found that the Lord Chancellor was “quite entitled” to conclude that there was no evidence of “real benefits for individuals other than the client… let alone that any such benefits would be substantial”.

The court was of the view that, clearly, it is a matter of significant wider public interest to understand why someone such as the claimant’s late husband “who was born in Dewsbury, Yorkshire and led his life in the United Kingdom should have decided to participate in the murder of a large number of innocent people in London”. This is likely to be investigated at the coming inquest. However, crucially, the claimant was not able to say how her being legally represented could add any particular insight. As the court put it:

Far from providing any information that might assist the wider public interest, she has flatly and unequivocally declined the opportunity to do so.

Lord Justice Thomas concluded that the  7/7 inquest would carry out its investigative function, presumably also discharging the state’s obligation under the European Convention too, without the claimant being legally represented:

… this inquest has its own substantial legal team, led by Mr Hugo Keith QC. There is no reason that we can discern why the interests of the claimant, on the basis of the information before us, cannot be fully and properly dealt with by her giving a statement of the background of her late husband and others to the legal team acting for the Coroner, on the basis of which the experienced counsel acting for her could ask the requisite questions.

This decision seems fair, given that the Claimant could not demonstrate how she could add much to the inquest proceedings. The decision will also be a popular one, given how little public sympathy there is for the families of the 7/7 bombers.

However, it would not be too difficult to imagine a scenario where the relative of a suicide bomber could justify such funding. The 7/7 inquest is going to be wide-ranging in its scope, and it is legitimate and important, as the High Court pointed out, to ask how the British-born bombers became ‘radicalized’. But this may be best accomplished by calling the bombers’ relatives as witnesses rather than providing them with legal representation.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: