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


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.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: