Chong Nyok Keyu and Others v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | The President of the Queen's Bench Division |
| Judgment Date | 04 September 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1827/2011 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 04 September 2012 |
[2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin)
President of the Queen's Bench Division
and
Mr Justice Treacy
Case No: CO/1827/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Michael Fordham QC, Danny Friedman and Zachary Douglas (instructed by John Halford, Bindman & Partners) for the Claimants
Jason Coppel and Marcus Pilgerstorfer (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 8 and 9 May 2012
This is the judgment of the court.
INTRODUCTION
On 11 and 12 December 1948 a patrol of the Second Battalion of the Scots Guards deployed to combat an insurgency and communist threat in the then Federation of Malaya shot and killed 24 civilians at Batang Kali, in the State of Selangor, a British Protected State. The deaths have been the subject of much controversy during the past 63 years.
There were investigations by at least the police and the Attorney General of the Federation of Malaya in December 1948. The conclusion of the investigations was that those killed were shot whilst trying to escape. Most of the papers relating to the investigations no longer survive.
In 1970, there was a Metropolitan Police investigation instigated by the Director of Public Prosecutions following allegations by members of the patrol published in The People that the 24 had been deliberately executed. They had not been shot whilst trying to escape; that account had been put forward by the leader of the Scots Guards patrol to cover up the executions. All the papers relating to that investigation are available. The investigation was terminated by the British Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General before it was concluded on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
After the broadcast of a BBC documentary about the deaths entitled In Cold Blood in 1992, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) considered whether there should be a prosecution and decided there should not be. In the light of the BBC documentary and a complaint by relatives of those killed and the Malaysian Chinese Association, the Royal Malaysia Police carried out an investigation between 1993 and 1997, but it was terminated by the Malaysian Attorney General. Most of the papers relating to that investigation are available.
The claimants who are witnesses to and survivors of the deaths at Batang Kali and close relatives of those who were killed sought, by Petition to Her Majesty the Queen in 2008, a public inquiry into the conduct of the Scots Guards and the ensuing events and investigations. They contended that the conclusion of the inquiry in 1948/9 was not sustainable and a fair appraisal of the available evidence compelled the conclusion that the 24 had been deliberately executed. The Secretaries of State by decisions dated 29 November 2010 and 4 November 2011 decided to exercise their discretion under the Inquiries Act 2005 not to establish a public inquiry or any other inquiry into the deaths.
The claimants, supported by 568 organisations in Malaysia ranging from schools and temples to professional and other associations, have brought these proceedings not only to challenge those decisions based on the exercise of the discretion which the Secretaries of State have to establish an inquiry, but to establish a legal duty on the Secretaries of State to carry out an inquiry. As the claimants' case necessarily involves imputing murder to the Scots Guardsmen who were members of the patrol, they have been served as interested parties, though only some are still alive. None took any part in the proceedings.
The Secretaries of State contended that no inquiry was required. First, they were under no legal duty to establish any inquiry; in any event, the British Government was not responsible for the Scots Guards as that responsibility rested either with the Ruler of Selangor or the Federation of Malaya or had passed to Malaysia on independence in 1957. Second, the exercise of their discretion was one which was properly made.
This judgment
i) First sets out the factual background which we have merely outlined.
ii) Then considers the issue as to whether there was a legal duty to hold an inquiry. We have concluded there was not.
iii) Finally considers whether there are any grounds to challenge the decisions of the Secretaries of State who had in the exercise of their discretion under the Inquiries Act 2005 determined that an inquiry would not be held. We have concluded that the challenge fails.
I: THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
(1) The State of Selangor and the Federation of Malaya
(a) 1874–5: The origins of British control over Selangor
In 1874 or 1875 Sultan Abdul Samad, as Ruler of the State of Selangor, entered into an arrangement with the British Government under which it became a Protected State; similar arrangements were entered into with other Malay states. The Ruler agreed by an exchange of letters with the Governor of the Straits Settlements to receive a British Resident who would aid and advise him in governing his kingdom. In effect the Ruler generally acted only through the Resident, who acted on instructions from the British Government. The Ruler, however, remained a sovereign: he was in the same position as the Ruler of another Malay state, Johore, whose sovereign status was acknowledged in Mighel v Sultan of Johore [1893] QB 149.
During the Second World War, Selangor and much of Malaya was conquered by the Japanese army. During that time the communist Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army fought with the British to defeat the Japanese.
After the conclusion of the war, Sir Harold McMichael on behalf of the King entered into a Treaty with the Ruler on 24 October 1945 under which Selangor became a Protectorate. The treaty provided that "His Majesty the King shall have full power and jurisdiction within the State of Selangor". In 1946 Selangor entered the Malayan Union. Malay opposition to these imperial arrangements then led to the restructuring of the Union as the Federation of Malaya and a renegotiation of the 1946 Treaty.
(b) 1948: Selangor as a State within the Federation of Malaya
In anticipation of the creation of the Federation, on 21 January 1948 Sir Gerard Gent on behalf of the King entered into a Treaty with the Ruler of Selangor on the same day as the Federation of Malaya agreement was concluded; similar treaties were made with other Malay states. Under clause 3 of the Treaty the Crown was to have "complete control of the defence and all other external affairs" of Selangor and the King undertook to protect Selangor "from external hostile attacks". For that and similar purposes the forces of the King were allowed free access to Selangor and to employ all necessary means of opposing any such attacks. The Ruler of Selangor undertook to accept the advice of a British Adviser on all matters connected with the Government of the State, other than matters relating to the Muslim religion or the custom of the Malays.
On 1 February 1948 the Federation of Malaya Agreement entered into force. It had been made between Sir Gerard Gent on behalf of the King and the Rulers of the Malay States. Clause 4 of the Agreement contained provisions in relation to defence and external affairs similar to that in clause 3 of the Selangor Treaty:
"His Majesty shall have complete control of the defence and of all the external affairs of the Federation, and undertakes to protect the Malay States from external hostile attack and for this and other similar purposes, His Majesty's Forces and all persons authorised by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government shall at all times be allowed free access to the Malay States and to employ all necessary means of opposing such attacks."
Part II of the Federation Agreement provided that the King would appoint a High Commissioner, a title used in this context not for a diplomat, but for a person entrusted with the exercise of the Crown's power and other executive power in the territory to which he was appointed. The Rulers of the Malay States undertook to accept his advice in all matters connected with the Federation. Part III of the Federation Agreement vested the executive authority of the Federation in the High Commissioner with a Federal Executive Council appointed by him to advise him. Under clause 19, the High Commissioner was given special responsibilities which included:
"(b) The safeguarding of any grave menace to the peace or tranquillity of the Federation or any Malay State or Settlement contained therein"
Under Part V of the Federation Agreement the High Commissioner and the Rulers were empowered to make laws known as Ordinances with the advice and consent of a Federal Legislative Council. Under the second schedule to the Federation Agreement, the Federal Legislative Council had power to make laws in relation to specified matters including defence and emergency powers.
Selangor was categorised as a Protected State: see British Protectorates, Protected States and Protected Persons Order 1949. In both a Protectorate and Protected State, defence and external affairs were in the hands of the United Kingdom. In a Protectorate the internal administration was normally under the same degree of British control as a British colony, but in a Protected State the Crown's jurisdiction was more limited and there was a local Ruler. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mutua v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [England, High Court, Queen's Bench Division]
...the decision of the Divisional Court in Chong Nyok Keyu & ors v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair, and AnorUNK[2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin) (Thomas P and Treacy J), to which the parties have kindly referred me. It seems that in that case the Divisional Court reached the sam......
-
R (Ali Zaki Mousa and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence No 2
...The Inspector will, of course, play the closest attention to the rehabilitative and cathartic issues that arise (see R (Chong Nyok Keyu) v Secretary of State [2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin) at paragraph 157 and R (Khan) v Secretary of State [2004] 1 WLR 971 at paragraph 43) and the interests of al......
-
R (Ali Zaki Mousa and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence No 2
...The purposes of an inquiry into deaths during a military operation are discussed in more detail in Keyu & others v Foreign Secretary [2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin) at paragraphs 136-175. (c) The duty under Article 2 of the Convention 144 It is common ground that Iraqis in the custody of the Briti......
-
R (on the application of Keyu) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
...Divisional Court (Sir John Thomas P and Treacy J) dismissed the claim for reasons given in a judgment given on 4 September 2012 — [2012] EWHC 2445 (Admin). The appellants' appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed for reasons given in a judgment of the court (Maurice Kay, Rimer and Fulfor......