Further guidance on the conduct of Iraqi death inquiries – High Court

3 October 2013 by

iraqMousa and others, R(on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 2941 (Admin) – read judgment

Earlier this year, the High Court ordered that an approach based upon a coroner’s inquest would be the most appropriate form of inquiry under Article 2 EHCR  into claims of ill treatment or killings of civilians by the British armed forces in Iraq (see Adam Wagner’s post on this decision). Here the President of the Queen’s Bench sets out the Court’s views as to the form such inquiries  should take.

  1.  A designated Judge, Leggatt J, has been appointed to oversee the conduct of the inquiry.
  2. An inquiry ought to be commenced as soon as it is clear that there will be no prosecution in cases to which the Article 2 obligation to hold an inquiry attaches
  3. To ensure that the Inspector is able to determine how each death occurred, it should be open to the inquiry to have powers of compulsion over military personnel to give evidence and produce documents.
  4. The inquiry must be public and be given the necessary support to enable the families in Iraq to participate in it, by video link and possibly making documentation available on the internet.
  5. The inquisition to be signed by the jury should describe how, when and where the deceased came about his death, without identifying the specific individuals responsible.
  6. The scope of disclosure is to be a matter of judgment for the inspector, but in the interests of expedition it is likely to be very limited.
  7. Families of those who were killed should not be provided with documentation relating to training and supervision; being able to follow the cross examination of those involved by the Inspector on video link will be sufficient to protect their interests.
  8. Given the type of inquiry envisaged, with a highly experienced lawyer or retired judge conducting the examination of witnesses, it will not be necessary for interested parties to have a right to ask their own questions (Article 2 does not require the granting of such a right)
  9. There will be no need for families of those whose deaths were being investigated to have “extensive” legal representation
  10. The Designated Judge should review the position in relation to the appointment of an Inspector for alleged cases of ill treatment under Article 3 once the first of the inquiries into deaths under Article 2 is under way.

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

More on this topic:

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 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 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 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 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: