European Court of Human Rights
| Date | 01 October 2001 |
| Published date | 01 October 2001 |
| Author | Claire de Than |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201830106500506 |
| Subject Matter | European Court of Human Rights |
European Court
of
Human Rights
Mistaken
Belief
in
Self-defence
May
Justify
Use
of
Lethal Force
Brady vUnited Kingdom (3 April 2001)
The applicant was
the
father of
James
Brady,
who
was
shot
dead by
armed
police in Newcastle in 1995 during arobbery. Police
had
received
information
on
or before 23 April from aregistered informant,
that
James
Brady
and
another
man
were
planning
to rob
the
Westerhope
Excelsior Working Men's Club after midnight
on
the
night
of 24 April.
The
informant
stated
that
the
men
would
be using
an
imitation firearm.
A
superintendent
planned
afirearms
operation
at
the
club
that
night
with
three
aims: to protect
the
resident steward
and
his family, to protect
the
police officers involved in
the
operation
and
to arrest
those
involved
in
the
planned
offence. At briefings
the
officers involved in
the
opera-
tion
were
told
to
treat
all imitation firearms as if
they
were
real unless
and
until
proven
otherwise.
It
was
mentioned
that
Brady
had
army
training
and
that
the
other
suspect
had
been
in possession of a
sawn
-off
shotgun
previously. Three
main
options for
the
police strategy
were
discussed:
an
armed
ambush
inside
the
club,
with
armed
officers hiding
at vantage points inside
the
club
and
aback-up
team
outside to
prevent
any
escape;
preventing
the
robbery by
introdudng
a
heavy
police pres-
ence
in
the
club
and
surrounding
area;
or
arresting
the
intruders
at
their
home
addresses before
the
ambush
went
ahead.
At 3.20
am
the
intruders
broke into
the
club
and
the
officer in charge
of
the
team
inside
the
club called his
men
into
action prematurely. Brady
had
not
yet
entered
the
premises.
When
an
officer
saw
him
climbing
through
the
kitchen window,
he
shot
Brady in
the
chest, killing him. At
the
inquest
the
officer stated
that
he
had
believed
that
Brady was
armed
and
represented a
threat
to his
own
life since
he
had
an
object in his
hand,
which
was in fact a small black torch. The
jury
returned
an
open
verdict
and
the
CPS
dedded
not
to prosecute
anyone
for
the
death
of
Brady, or for misfeasance in public office.
The applicant alleged
that
his son's right to life
had
been
violated,
arguing
that
the
police could
have
prevented
the
robbery
and
that
the
ambush
was motivated by
their
wish to
gather
enough. evidence for a
conviction of
the
suspects. Thus
he
argued
that
the
drcumstances
of
the
ambush
had
put
his son's life in danger,
and
that
this
danger
was
unjustifiable
under
Article 2(2) since it was
not
'absolutely necessary',
and
his
son
was
unarmed.
Further, he argued
that
the
whole
firearms
operation
was
grossly negligent
and
incompetently
planned,
and
that
those
planning
it failed to
have
regard to
the
inevitability
that
lethal
force
would
be used.
If
the
ambush
team
had
not
been
called
into
action
prematurely
by
the
officer in charge, his son
would
still be alive.
Article 2 of
the
Convention
provides:
417
To continue reading
Request your trial