R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Rix,OR |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2242/2004 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 June 2007 |
[2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin)
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Rix and
The Honourable Mr Justice Forbes
Case No: CO/2242/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Rabinder Singh QC, Michael Fordham, Shaheed Fatima and Professor Christine Chinkin (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimants
Professor Christopher Greenwood QC, Philip Sales and Cecilia Ivimy (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Edward Fitzgerald QC, Mark Henderson and Joseph Middleton (instructed by Bhatt Murphy) for the Intervener by way of written submissions
Hearing dates: 28th, 29th and 30th July and 30 November 2004
Summary
(this note forms no part of the judgment)
In this judgment of the court, the Divisional Court considers the claims of six claimants, relatives respectively of Iraqi citizens who have died in provinces of Iraq where and at a time when the United Kingdom was recognised as an occupying power (viz between 1 May 2003 and 28 June 2004). The first five claimants' relatives were shot in separate armed incidents involving British troops. The sixth claimant's son, Mr Baha Mousa, died in a military prison in British custody. The claims are for judicial review, on the basis that article 2 and (in the case of the sixth claimant) also article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights applies, by reason of the Human Rights Act 1998, to these claims.
This judgment is only concerned with two preliminary issues: (1) whether the deaths took place within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom so as to fall within the scope of (a) the Convention and (b) the Act; and (2) whether, if so, there has been a breach of the requirements under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention regarding an adequate enquiry into those deaths.
The judgment first decides, on the basis of a consideration of Strasbourg jurisprudence, that a state party's jurisdiction within article 1 of the Convention ("The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 of this Convention") is essentially territorial; that exceptionally such jurisdiction extends to outposts of the state's authority abroad such as embassies and consulates; that this exception can apply to a prison operated by a state party in the territory of another state with the consent of that state; but that it does not apply to the total territory of another state which is not itself a party to the Convention, even if that territory is in the effective control of the first state; and that therefore only the case of the sixth complainant, in respect of his son's death in a British prison in Iraq, was within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction and thus within the scope of the Convention. It follows that, in the opinion of the court, the claims of the first five claimants must fail.
Secondly, the judgment decides, on the basis of a consideration of the Act, that its scope is also essentially territorial but also extends exceptionally, like the Convention, to the case of outposts of the United Kingdom's authority abroad such as embassies and consulates and in this case the prison in Iraq in which the death of Mr Baha Mousa occurred. It follows that, in the opinion of the court, the sixth claim is capable of falling within the Convention and the Act.
Thirdly, the judgment decides, on the basis of a consideration of the facts relating to the death of Mr Baha Mousa and the surrounding circumstances, that the enquiries that have taken place into his death are not adequate in terms of the implied procedural requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
Index to Al-Skeini Judgment
| Introduction | 2–8 |
| General background | 9–13 |
| The post-conflict government and administration of Iraq | 14–39 |
| The position of the United Kingdom's armed forces in Iraq during the relevant period (i.e. 1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004) | 40–46 |
| Investigations into civilian deaths | 47–54 |
| The facts of each of the six cases | 55–89 |
| Case 1: Hazim Jum'aa Gatteh Al-Skeini | 56–59 |
| Case 2: Muhammad Abdul Ridha Salim. | 60–63 |
| Case 3: Hannan Mahaibas Sadde Shmailawi | 64–67 |
| Case 4: Waleed Sayay Muzban | 68–76 |
| Case 5: Raid Hadi Sabir Al Musawi | 77–80 |
| Case 6: Baha Mousa | 81–89 |
| Jurisdiction under the Convention | 90 |
| The provisions of the Convention | 91–95 |
| The travaux préparatoires of the Convention | 96–99 |
| Other relevant international texts | 100–107 |
| The essential structure of the issue between the parties concerning the jurisdiction of the Convention | 108–116 |
| Bankovic v. Belgium (2001) | 117–126 |
| The Strasbourg jurisprudence | 127–201 |
| X v. Federal Republic of Germany | 128–129 |
| 130–137 | |
| Hess v. United Kingdom | 138–140 |
| X and Y v. Switzerland | 141–143 |
| X v. United Kingdom | 144–145 |
| Tyrer v. United Kingdom | 146–148 |
| W v. United Kingdom | 149 |
| Soering v. United Kingdom | 150–153 |
| Thanh v. United Kingdom | 154 |
| 155–157 | |
| Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain | 158–166 |
| WM v. Denmark | 167–169 |
| 170–174 | |
| Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) | 175–176 |
| 177–180 | |
| Yonghong v. Portugal | 181–182 |
| 183–187 | |
| Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom | 188–189 |
| 190–191 | |
| Öcalan v. Turkey | 192–195 |
| Ilascu v. Moldova and Russia | 196–201 |
| Issa v Turkey | 202–222 |
| Domestic jurisprudence | 223–239 |
| R (Abbasi and another) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department | 224–228 |
| 229–231 | |
| Regina (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator | 232–239 |
| Jurisprudence of other nations | 240–243 |
| Cook v. The Queen | 241 |
| Rasul v. Bush | 242 |
| Conclusions derived from this jurisprudence | 244–280 |
| The principles as applied to the facts | 281–288 |
| Jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998 | 289–307 |
| R(B) v. Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office | 308–317 |
| Procedural requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention | 318–325 |
| The procedural obligation as applied on the facts | 326–341 |
| Other Remedies | 342–343 |
| Conclusion | 344–345 |
This is the judgment of the court to which both members have contributed.
Introduction
The claimants in these proceedings are all relatives of deceased Iraqi civilians ("the deceased"), who have been killed by or in the course of action taken by British soldiers in the period following completion of major combat operations in Iraq and prior to the assumption of authority by the Iraqi Interim Government (i.e. the period 1 May 2003 to 28 June 2004). The defendant is the Secretary of State for Defence ("the Secretary of State").
This judgment is concerned with the determination of two preliminary issues (as to which, see paragraphs 5 and 6 below) arising out of the claimants' application for judicial review of the Secretary of State's alleged failure and/or refusal: (i) to conduct independent inquiries into the deaths of the deceased, (ii) to accept liability for those deaths and (iii) to pay just satisfaction.
Stated in general terms, the claimants' application for judicial review concerns the legal responsibilities of the Secretary of State under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 ("the HRA") in relation to the civilian deaths in question. It is the claimants' case (as originally pleaded) that the Secretary of State acted in breach of section 6 of the HRA, in particular by his violation of the procedural obligations under article 2 (the right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention"), in failing and/or refusing to conduct independent inquiries into the deaths of the various deceased.
On 11 May 2004, at the hearing of the claimants' application for permission to apply for judicial review, Collins J granted the claimants permission to apply in relation to the two preliminary issues to be determined in these proceedings and (inter alia) ordered that the remainder of the application for permission be stayed until the determination of those preliminary issues: see paragraph 1 of the order of Collins J, made by consent on 11 May 2004 ("the 11 May Order").
Accordingly, these proceedings are concerned with the determination of the following two preliminary issues, as modified later by agreement between the parties (as to which, see paragraph 8 below): see the terms of paragraph 2 of the 11 May Order:
"2. There shall be a hearing to determine the following preliminary issues:
2.1 Whether the European Convention of [Human] Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 apply to the circumstances of this case; and
2.2 Whether the procedural duty under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights has been violated by the Defendant."
By the same Order, Collins J also granted permission to amend the original claim form as follows: (i) to include Daoud Mousa (the father of Baha Mousa: as to whom, see below) as a new claimant and (ii) to amend the original grounds of the application to include (where relevant) a complaint that the Secretary of State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner
...23 So far as concerns the second question, the ambit of article 1 had been exhaustively considered by the Divisional Court [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin); [2007] QB 140 which had analysed chronologically all the relevant Strasbourg authorities, including Bankovic. The court concluded that these ......
-
R (Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi) v Secretary of State for Defence
...judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the interpretation of ECHR Article 1. The House of Lords made clear in R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] 1 AC 153, to which I must return, that in determining whether a situation falls within the jurisdiction of a State f......
-
R (Smith) v Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner
... ... on the Application of Rodney Claimant and Secretary of State for the Home Department Defendant [2009] EWHC ... ...
-
R (Barclay and Others) v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and Others
...insofar as there was a majority view in Quark it was Lord Nicholls and Lord Hoffman who expressed it. 84 In R (Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence [2008] 1 AC Lord Brown said at paragraph 134 of their Lordships' speeches:- “I agree, of course, that there is a distinct......
-
The globalized rule of law and national security: an ongoing quest for coherence.
...FC 336, [2008] 4 FCR 546 at para 249, (referring to Al-Skeini & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence, [2004] EWHC 2911 (Admin) Queen's Bench Division Divisional Court where "the finding of exceptional extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to Mr Mousa's cl......
-
Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law
...of the ECtHRs in Bankovic, supra note 14, and Ocalan, supra note 13. In Al-Skeini& Others v. Secretary of State for Defence [2004] EWHC (Admin) 2911 [222], the High Court had difficulty in reconciling the decisions of the ECtHRs in Bankovic and Issa & Others v. Turkey, App. No. 31821/96, Eu......
-
Is Human Rights Law of Any Relevance to Military Operations in Afghanistan?
...Al Skeini 8c Ors, R (on the application of) v. Secretary of State for Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, Dec. 14, 2004, [2005] HRLR 3, [2005] 2 W.L.R. 1401, [2004] EWHC 291 1 (Admin), [2005] UKHRR 427, [2005] ACD 51. 105. The treaty texts require that the victim of the alleged......
-
Human Rights Act: Extra-Territorial Application
...jurisdiction and the doctrine of‘overall effective control’ (see R (on the application of Al-Skeini) v Secretaryof State for Defence [2004] EWHC 2911, (2005) 69 JCL 295–301). BrookeLJ explained perfectly the difference between ‘ECA’ (effective control ofan area) and ‘SAA’ (state agent autho......