R (Ali Zaki Mousa and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence No 2
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | President of the Queen's Bench Division |
| Judgment Date | 25 May 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/5503/2012,CO/5503/2012 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 25 May 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
President of the Queen's Bench Division
Mr Justice Silber
Case No: CO/5503/2012
Michael Fordham QC, James Maurici, Danny FriedmanQC, Dan Squires (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimants
James Eadie QC, Philip HaversQC and Kate Grange (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
This is the judgment of the court
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
In the present case, the claimants are Iraqi citizens who claim they were ill-treated by the British armed forces in Iraq or are relatives of those who were killed by the British armed forces. Although they have brought separate actions for compensation (many of which have been compromised), they brought judicial review proceedings in February 2010 claiming that the investigation established by the defendant, the Secretary of State for Defence (the Secretary of State), was neither independent nor in adequate compliance with the investigative duties under Articles 2 and 3 of the Human Rights Convention. They succeeded in establishing that the investigation was not sufficiently independent in those proceedings. The Secretary of State reconstituted the investigation; in this second set of proceedings, they contended that, as reconstituted, it is still not independent and they seek a more far reaching inquiry.
In the course of the proceedings it became clear we had to hear oral evidence in relation to the issue on independence; it also became clear that issues of very substantial difficulty arose as to the way in which the investigative duties should be discharged given the unprecedented nature and the size of the task.
The Strasbourg Court has determined that the scope of the Convention extends to a number of circumstances in which deaths and serious ill treatment are alleged to have occurred involving the British forces in Iraq in the period 2003-09. On the basis of the Strasbourg Court's decisions there were thought at the turn of the year to be about 40 cases where it is accepted the investigative duty into deaths under Article 2 and 135 cases where the duty under Article 3 arises. These figures are now much greater. We were told that there might be as many as 150-160 cases involving death and 700-800 cases involving mistreatment in breach of Article 3, though the precise numbers that require investigation will be determined by decisions as to the scope of the application of the Convention to the activities undertaken by the British armed forces in Iraq. This judgment makes no decision on territorial scope.
The duty that the Secretary of State now has to discharge as a result of the Strasbourg decisions is therefore unprecedented as it covers the operations of the British armed forces for a six year period whilst they invaded and occupied Iraq as part of the Coalition and subsequent arrangements. The allegations made are allegations of the most serious kind involving murder, manslaughter, the wilful infliction of serious bodily injury, sexual indignities, cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and large scale violation of international humanitarian law. The incidents in relation to which the allegations arise are fact specific. What happened is often unclear and the subject of dispute. Many of the incidents occurred several years ago; the Iraqi witnesses are largely residents of Iraq. Some incidents have been the subject of prosecution and more may be. The only public inquiry that has been completed, Baha Mousa, has cost £25m and the second, Al Sweady, has cost more than £17m so far. The other investigations established by the Secretary of State are costing about £7.5m a year.
We are entirely satisfied that the Secretary of State has been assiduous and conscientious in his attempts to try and discharge the duties imposed on the State in these unprecedented circumstances, but it became apparent in the course of the proceedings that some further reconsideration must be given.
Although we are satisfied, for the reasons we set out at paragraphs 108-125, that IHAT has now been structured in such a way that it can independently carry out its investigative and prosecutorial functions, the task of investigating and inquiring into the very large number of deaths occurring at many different times and in different locations requires a new approach if it is to be achieved in a timely, cost effective and proportionate manner that discharges the very important investigative duties imposed upon the State. We set out our views at paragraphs 213 to 221.
We are also satisfied that reconsideration is needed of the way in which the duty to assess the systemic issues and to take account of lessons learnt is discharged in a way that provides greater transparency and public accountability. We set out our views at paragraphs 222 to 225.
THE BACKGROUND
(i) The origin of the allegations
During the course of the participation of the British armed forces in the Coalition that invaded Iraq in March 2003 and in the occupation of part of Iraq thereafter until the withdrawal of the armed forces in 2009, allegations were made about the conduct of the armed forces towards the population of Iraq.
Some of these were investigated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC); we refer to one of its reports made in February 2004 into allegations made against the Coalition Forces at paragraph 58.ii) below.
(ii) The Al-Skeini litigation
On 26 March 2004, the Secretary of State announced his decision not to conduct independent inquiries into the death of 113 Iraqis in Iraq, including the deaths of:
i) Al Skeini (4 August 2003), Salim (5 November 2003), Shmailawi (10 November 2003) and Muzban (24 August 2003). All of these had been killed by a military patrol or during a security operation.
ii) Ahmed Jabbar Kareem Ali, a 15 year old, drowned on 8 May 2003 to whom we refer at paragraph 158 below.
iii) Baha Mousa who was killed while in custody of the armed forces on 14 September 2003.
The decision was challenged by the six we have named before the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords. It was held that an Inquiry under Article 2 was not required into the deaths of those other than Baha Mousa as the deaths had not occurred within the territorial scope of the Convention.
On 7 July 2011, the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court in Al Skeini and others v United Kingdom (2012) 53 EHRR 18 held that the deaths were within the territorial scope of the Convention and an investigative duty arose.
(iii) The Report of Brigadier Aitken
In January 2008, a report by Brigadier Aitken into allegations of unlawful killing and mistreatment commissioned by the Army Board was published. It acknowledged that there had been abuse and 6 instances of deliberate abuse, including the deaths of Ahmed Jabber Kareem, Nadheem Abdullah, Sa'eed Shabram, and Baha Mousa to whom we refer at paragraphs 134-135; but, looked at numerically, the level of abuse had been tiny. A wide range of corrective measures had been taken since 2003; we refer to one of these at paragraph 62 below.
(iv) The Baha Mousa inquiry
In 2006, soldiers who had or were responsible for the custody of Baha Mousa were tried by a court martial presided over by MacKinnon J. One pleaded guilty. The others were acquitted in circumstances that caused considerable public concern.
On 14 May 2008, the Secretary of State appointed The Rt. Hon Sir William Gage to conduct an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) into the circumstances of the death of Baha Mousa and the treatment of those detained with him. The Inquiry was conducted in four modules (the history of conditioning techniques, the facts surrounding the detentions and death, training and the chain of command, and recommendations). Its 3 volume report into the facts with 73 recommendations was published on 8 September 2011. The cost of the Inquiry was £25m.
(v) The Al Sweady inquiry
A further investigation under Articles 2 and 3 was sought by the relatives of Al-Sweady and others whom the relatives alleged were taken prisoner by HM armed forces and killed or mistreated between 14 May and 23 September 2004. The need for such an investigation was eventually conceded by the Secretary of State for Defence in the course of proceedings before the Divisional Court ( R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] EWHC 2387 (Admin)).
The Secretary of State initially wanted the Metropolitan Police to conduct the investigation, but they declined to do so. On 25 November 2009 the Secretary of State appointed The Hon Sir Thayne Forbes to conduct an inquiry under the 2005 Act. It took some time to gather materials and evidence; hearings of the evidence commenced on 4 March 2013 and a number of witnesses have been heard. As at 30 April 2013, it had cost £17.1m; the figures indicate a cost of about £0.5 million a month.
(vi) The establishment of IHAT
On 10 February 2010, the claimants in these proceedings issued their first proceedings for judicial review against the Secretary of State. The nature of the proceedings can be illustrated by reference to those made by the first claimant, Ali Zaki Mousa, who was arrested on 16 November 2006 by the British armed forces and detained by them at various locations until his release in November 2007. He claims that he was subjected to extensive ill-treatment as summarised at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al-Saadoon & Others v Secretary of State for Defence
...Police from IHAT and replacing them with other investigators. 29 In R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence (No 2) [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin) and [2013] EWHC 2941 (Admin), in judgments given on 24 May 2013 and 2 October 2013, a Divisional Court (consisting of the then President o......
-
The Queen (Haidar Ali Hussein) v The Secretary of State for Defence
...appellant to bring these proceedings as an adjunct to the proceedings in Ali Zaki Mousa (No. 2) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin), in which he is one of the 138 claimants, nor to any investigation resulting therefrom. 83 There are, nevertheless, situations in which ......
-
Al-Saadoon v Defence Secretary
...Police from IHAT and replacing them with other investigators. 29. In R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v. Secretary of State for Defence (No 2)[2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin) and [2013] EWHC 2941 (Admin), in judgments given on 24 May 2013 and 2 October 2013, a Divisional Court (consisting of the then President o......
-
Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for Defence
...of IHAT, an account which I gratefully adopt. 6 In its judgment in R (Ali Zaki Mousa) v Secretary of State for Defence (No. 2) [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin) the Divisional Court recognised that there were unresolved issues of law relating to the applicability of the ECHR. Following its further j......
-
Discolouring Democracy? Policing, Sensitive Evidence, and Contentious Deaths in the United Kingdom
...regime in discharging thestate's Article 2 obligations. In Mousa & Ors, R (on the application of) v. Secretaryof State for Defence [2013] EWHC 1412 (Admin), the High Court considered thetype of inquiry appropriate for discharging the state's Article 2 obligations that havearisen following c......