Where in the world does the Human Rights Act apply?

1 July 2011 by

Smith & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2011] EWHC 1676 (QB) – Read judgment

Update, 20 June 2013: This decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court: Supreme Court gives the go ahead for negligence and human rights claims for British servicemen deaths in Iraq

The Human Rights Act applies in the UK. That much is clear. Whether it applies outside of UK territory is a whole other question, and one for which we may have a new answer when the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights gives judgment in the case of Al-Skeini and others v. the United Kingdom & Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom next week.

The court is to give its long-awaited ruling at 10am (Strasbourg time) on Thursday 7 July. In short, the 7 applicants in the case were killed, allegedly killed or detained (Al-Jedda) by British forces in Iraq between 2003 and 2007. Both of the claims reached the House of Lords in the UK (now the Supreme Court), and in all but one case, which involved a death in a military detention centre, the court found that the Human Rights Act did not apply in Basra at the time, and therefore the UK military had no obligation to observe the requirements under the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular article 2 (the right to life) and article 5 (right to liberty).

For a summary of the cases, see this excellent EJIL:Talk! post (and this one too), which emphasises the “wide-ranging implications” of the judgment, including:

the extraterritorial application of the ECHR and the use of force generally… occupation and targeted killings… the responsibility of international organizations, the relationship between the ECHR regime and the UN Security Council under Article 103 of the Charter

The timing is uncanny, given that judgment was given only yesterday in Smith & Ors v Ministry of Defence [2011] EWHC 1676 (QB). This is a case involving 7 British soldiers, 4 of whom were killed and 3 injured as a result of what they allege was poor equipment and/or training provided to troops in Iraq.

Mr Justice Owen in the High Court struck out the soldiers’ claims under the Human Rights Act. He said that his hand were tied as

The scope of the Convention jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1 has been addressed by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR in Bankovic, and by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court respectively in Al-Skeini and Smith v Oxfordshire.

In fact, Smith v Oxfordshire involved the same “Smith” as in this particular case. His family had taken the territorial point to the Supreme Court, in relation to the family’s rights to have a full investigation into Mr Smith’s death under article 2, the right to life. The court turned them down last year (see my post) on the basis that

The contracting States might well not have contemplated that the application of article 2 to troop operations abroad would have involved obligations such as those I have discussed above, but whatever the implications might have seemed, it is unlikely that they would have appeared a desirable consequence of the Convention.

The Supreme Court declined the offer of extending the terrotorial scope of the Human Rights Act, instead leaving the question for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg:

We are here dealing with the scope of the Convention and exploring principles that apply to all contracting States. The contention that a State’s armed forces, by reason of their personal status, fall within the jurisdiction of the State for the purposes of article 1 is novel. I do not believe that the principles to be derived from the Strasbourg jurisprudence, conflicting as some of them are, clearly demonstrate that the contention is correct.


The proper tribunal to resolve this issue is the Strasbourg Court itself, and it will have the opportunity to do so when it considers Al-Skeini.

So, when the matter came back in front of Mr Justice Owen, he had little choice but to strike out the human rights aspects of the claims, although he commented:

An application to the ECtHR in Al-Skeini has been argued before the Grand Chamber, and judgment is awaited. But in the meantime Al-Skeini must be assumed correctly to state the law.

Interestingly, he declined to strike out the common law negligence claims (that is, damages for personal injury), and said that despite the standard protection the military has against such claims – so called “combat immunity”, see e.g. this ruling at para 47 – that this immunity should be “narrowly construed” (para 99) and that in this case the claims as a result of allegedly faulty equipment should be allowed to proceed.

That being said, since this was only a preliminary hearing in which the Defendant was attempting to have the claim struck out, the claimants only had to show they had a “real prospect of success” as opposed to proving their case in full. So they may still lose in the case itself.

The claimants in Smith now have 14 days to appeal, and it seems highly likely that they will do so if the judgment in Al-Skeini & Al-Jedda changes the landscape as to where in the world the Human Rights Act applies. If the European Court does choose to expand the act’s jurisdiction, this could have enormous implications not just for those soldiers and their families, but many other people too. In short, the state’s responsibilities under the Human Rights Act may look very different come Thursday 7 July.

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

Read more

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 care homes 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 ouster clauses 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 procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: