Azelle Rodney Inquiry lawyers can see surveillance film footage

16 October 2012 by

R (on the application of the Metropolitan Police Service) v the Chairman of the Inquiry into the Death of Azelle Rodney and Interested Parties [2012] EWHA 2783 (Admin) – read judgment

concerned the issue whether police surveillance footage taken from the air, showing Azelle Rodney’s movements in the two hours before his death, should be disclosed to the legal team representing his mother at the Inquiry.

The footage was shot during a 2005 drug heist operation involving Mr Rodney, 25, who was shot six times at point-blank range after a car chase. One of the issues of importance to the deceased’s mother (Ms Alexander, the First Interested Party)  was whether there had been a better opportunity to stop the car and its occupants at any time before the hard-stop which resulted in Mr Rodney’s death. This issue involved consideration by the Inquiry of the management of the surveillance/stop operation by senior officers. The officer in charge of the operation is due to give his evidence and to be questioned by Ms Alexander’s counsel. 

The MPS wantedSection 19 Inquiries Act 2005 gives the chairman to the inquiry the power to restrict  decide whether there is a real risk of prejudice to an important public interest which may be caused by public disclosure. If there is such a risk, the Chairman will consider whether the party’s interests can be protected by a form of disclosure which gives adequate protection to the public interest. Finally, the Chairman will consider the powers at his disposal to ensure that evidence which should not be in the public domain is not received in public session. In reaching his decision, the Chairman will have in mind the important principle that, so far as possible, those intimately concerned in an Article 2 inquiry must be afforded effective means of participation.  IR 2006 the Chairman may only disclose potentially restricted evidence to a person not otherwise entitled to see it if he considers that it is necessary for the determination of the application; here, the Chairman decided to make such disclosure.

The nature of the public interest which the prosecution in a criminal case commonly seeks to assert when it is in possession of relevant material whose disclosure is resisted was described by Lord Bingham in  R v H[2004] UKHL 3:

public interest most regularly engaged is that in the effective investigation and prosecution of serious crime, which may involve resort to informers and under-cover agents, or the use of scientific or operational techniques (such as surveillance) which cannot be disclosed without exposing individuals to the risk of personal injury or jeopardising the success of future operations. In such circumstances some derogation from the golden rule of full disclosure may be justified but such derogation must always be the minimum derogation necessary to protect the public interest in question and must never imperil the overall fairness of the trial.

 that the Chairman had erred in law in deciding that the film should be shown to the legal teams in the argument over public interest immunity (PII), which the police were claiming for the footage. It was also submitted that the Chairman had given inadequate reasons for reaching his conclusion. The defendants and interested parties contended that the Chairman had to have regard to his obligations under section 17(3) Inquiries Act 2005 to make his procedural decisions with fairness and the Inquiry’s obligations to make a full investigation under Article 2 of the Convention. They relied Al Rawi v Security Service  [2012] 1 AC 531, in which their Lordships emphasised the principle of open justice and need to ensure that in the PII process there is no unfairness or inequality of arms. Taking this argument further, they contended thatAl Rawi.  Where State agents are implicated in a killing whose circumstances and possible motivation is best known to those agents, the widest possible light should be shed on events R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC 653 .

The Independent Police Complaints Commission supported 

The Court dismissed this application by the MPS.

The Court’s reasoning

The Court acknowledged the interested parties’ arguments that the Chairman, when making his judgment, was bound to have in mind his obligation to ensure that the family was afforded an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The Chairman would indeed have this obligation in mind, but

Ramsahai and Others v Netherlands (Case 52391/99)[2008] 46 EHRR 43 at paragraphs 347 and 348).

Nevertheless the Court was satisfied that the Chairman had directed himself properly under the rules of the Inquiry in this dispute over disclosure. moment  when only examination by Ms Alexander’s counsel of the material could result in the proper determination the MPS’s application for a restriction order. 

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

Related reading

2 comments


  1. Rosemary Cantwell says:

    16 October 2012

    I am delighted that the public interest is to have OPEN courts and transparency.

    Once “secret courts” get a foothold that is the way to dictatorship.

    Thank you very much for giving us the information and your analysis.

    Best wishes

    Rosemary Cantwell

  2. jacqui butterworth says:

    Six shots-this was a massacre. And then trying to hide the evidence. Corrupt cops spring to mind

Comments are closed.

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


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: