Re B: soldiers and the criminal process in Northern Ireland

16 March 2021 by

Free Derry Corner as it originally appeared © BBC 2011.

Re B’s application [2020] NIQB 76 was a challenge to a decision to prosecute a soldier for offences going back to 1972. Part of the small but politically divisive cohort of prosecutions arising out of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Re B provides a classic example of how courts approach the issue of fairness in criminal prosecutions for historic offences.

“B” is a former soldier of the British Army who had been serving in Northern Ireland. On 31 July 1972, the Army launched “Operation Motorman” to clear so-called “no-go” areas in Belfast and Derry, which had become highly problematic and dangerous for security forces at the time.

In the early hours of 31 July 1972, B was part of a company of soldiers deployed in the Creggan Heights area of Derry. He was armed with a 7.62 x 51 mm calibre General Purpose Machine Gun. At around this time, three local people were also in the area: Thomas Hegarty, his brother Christopher Hegarty and their cousin Daniel Hegarty. At some time shortly after 4.15 am, there was a burst of machine gun fire. When it stopped, Daniel Hegarty lay dead on the street, having been shot twice in the head. He was 15 years old. Christopher Hegarty was also wounded in the shooting, but survived.

An initial inquest in 1973 returned an “open verdict“, which is used when verdicts such as a death from natural causes, an accident or suicide are unavailable. A second inquest was ordered by the Northern Ireland Attorney General in 2009, which concluded in 2011 with a unanimous jury finding that none of the Hegartys had posed any risk when they had been shot at. Soon after the second inquest, the Coroner made a statutory referral to the then Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland (DPPNI) as it appeared that one or more offences had been committed in the shooting of the Hegartys. In 2016, the DPPNI decided not to prosecute B in relation to Daniel and Christopher Hegarty. This was successfully challenged, with the decision quashed in 2018 for the DPPNI’s failure to apply the correct test for commencement of a criminal prosecution.

A fresh decision, by a new DPPNI, was made in April 2019 to prosecute B for the murder of Daniel Hegarty and the wounding with intent of Christopher Hegarty. This was then challenged by B and the challenge heard before a Divisional Court (Lord Justice Treacy, Mr Justice O’Hara and Sir John Gillen). B challenged the decision on several grounds, two of which were central. B argued that the DPPNI’s decision had breached his rights under Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This was because B argued that the decision (1) effectively increased the risk to his life and (2) subjected him to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The main evidential backdrop to B’s challenge was supplied in four medical reports (which had also been supplied to the previous and current DPPNI). At their height, these reports concluded that there was an increased risk of myocardial infarction and sudden death if B were prosecuted, but also conceded “No one can predict when a deterioration in heart failure will occur and/or death in [B]”.

The Court’s decision

At the outset, Treacy LJ for the unanimous Court heavily criticised the challenge as being a kind of “satellite” litigation – a case taken on an issue related to but not at the heart of the main case, before a different court to the one which would hear the main case. In the criminal justice setting, while judicial reviews taken out of the criminal courts are not unusual, they add delay and procedural complexity in an area where timely justice is a fundamental concern (see a recent post on this blog by Joanna Curtis), and are therefore discouraged for this reason. Moreover, as Treacy LJ observed, the entirety of the decision-making process in this case had already been plagued by considerable delay – the Coroner’s referral to the DPPNI had been (at the time of the judgment) made almost a decade prior. Further, the crux of B’s evidence – that of his health concerns – could be dealt with in the criminal courts as part of the criminal process itself, without commencing actions in other courts.

The challenge under Article 2 of the ECHR proceeded on two related duties: not to take life and to protect life in circumstances where a real and immediate risk to an individual’s life exists. For B, this risk was disclosed in the medical reports. This risk also formed the basis of the Article 3 challenge – that the prospect of enduring a trial given B’s health concerns gave rise to inhuman or degrading treatment. Treacy LJ ultimately dismissed both challenges by pointing to the existing safeguards built into the criminal process. The Court observed that B may make use of several applications in the criminal courts – arguing that he is unfit to stand trial, that a trial would be an abuse of process or argue for special measures to accommodate his health concerns as part of the trial process. This was particularly relevant as the increase in risk to B was unquantifiable – the four medical reports highlighted concerns, but also recognised the futility of accurately predicting or quantifying the risk to B from the trial process itself.

The Court were particularly unimpressed with the potentially sweeping nature of B’s main argument – if medical evidence pointing to increased health risks as part of any criminal trial could establish breaches of ECHR rights, then it would “confer de facto immunity on any suspect with a medical condition capable of similarly increasing risk consequential upon higher levels of stress resulting from a decision to prosecute”.

Comment

The Divisional Court’s judgment is a classic restatement of two main points with longstanding authority: the need to avoid satellite litigation and its associated delay and complexity in the criminal process, and the difference between a decision to prosecute and an actual prosecution in the context of ECHR rights. While B had argued that it is not in the public interest to prosecute someone with an increased risk of death, the Court, invoking recent Supreme Court authority, held that the public interest test for deciding whether to prosecute was not the same as the question of whether there would be an unjustifiable interference with an individual’s ECHR rights.

A final point of considerable importance is the Court’s reminder of the structural guarantees of fairness built into the criminal process. This reminder is not only important in terms of the administration of criminal justice (i.e. the importance of a fair system to protect the substantive rights of suspects and defendants) but also for the political and social backdrop from which this case arose. The prosecution of soldiers for offences relating to the Troubles is a (numerically) small but increasingly explosive cohort of judicial business. No soldier has yet been convicted in this cohort, though the litigation surrounding it has been subject to emotive, divisive and often insensitive rhetoric. A government bill has passed the House of Commons and is now in the House of Lords, which creates restrictions of time and process for bringing similar prosecutions, with a new duty on the Secretary of State to consider whether or not the UK should make a derogation under the ECHR in respect of any overseas operations which are or would be significant.

Amid this controversy, it is worth remembering that the investigative duty under Article 2 of the ECHR includes duties owed to victims’ next-of-kin (see e.g. Al-Skeini v United Kingdom (Application no. 55721/07)), with the family of Daniel and Christopher Hegarty having waited almost 40 years for the start of the process of ensuring justice.

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 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

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: