R v Greater Belfast Coroner ex parte Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD SLYNN OF HADLEY,LORD WOOLF,LORD NOLAN,LORD HUTTON
Judgment Date20 June 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] UKHL 25
Date20 June 2002
CourtHouse of Lords
In Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
(APPELLANTS)(NORTHERN IRELAND)

[2002] UKHL 25

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Woolf

Lord Nolan

Lord Hutton

Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough

HOUSE OF LORDS

LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY

My Lords,

1

This appeal raises an important question as to the capacity and functions of the Northern Ireland Human RightsCommission set up by section 68 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 ("the1998 Act".

2

The question arises out of an inquest held by Her Majesty's Coroner for the district of Fermanagh and Tyrone into the deaths of victims of the bomb explosion in Omagh on 15 August 1998. Two matters became relevant. The first was whether the Coroner should order pre-inquest disclosure. The Coroner by letter dated 16 August 2000 asked whether the Commission wished to make a formal submission on human rights issues connected with that matter. The Commission prepared a skeleton argument on that and was represented by counsel at a hearing on 6 September 2000. Following representations on behalf of the next of kin, the Coroner exercised his discretion to order pre-trial discovery and so he did not call on the Commission.

3

The second matter concerned the scope of the inquest's remit. On 12 September the Commission wrote to the Coroner stating that in the opinion of the Commission "there may be human rights principles arising in respect of these matters on which it would be appropriate for the Commission to make submissions"

4

In the meantime the Coroner had told the Commission that the latter would be provided with transcripts since he was "satisfied" that the Commission's status equated "to that of a properly interested person" The Commission noticed that in the only skeleton argument prepared on behalf of some of the relatives there was no consideration of applicable human rights standards. Following correspondence and oral submissions as to whether the Commission had power to intervene, the Coroner on 27 September 2000 ruled that the Commission had no statutory power to intervene and that accordingly he could not permit it to intervene.

5

The Commission challenged the Coroner's decision pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3 (2)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) 1980, asking for a declaration that the Coroner's decision (to the effect that the Commission had no power or standing to intervene in proceedings so that it could not be permitted to intervene at the inquest) was wrong in law. It was contended on behalf of the Commission that (a) the Commission could apply to intervene and (b) that the Court could permit the Commission to intervene for the purpose of making submissions and representations concerning human rights.

6

Sir Robert Carswell LCJ on 8 December 2000 considered that he was impelled to uphold the Coroner's ruling and he refused to make the declarations sought. The Court of Appeal by a majority (McCollum LJ and Sir John MacDermott, Kerr J dissenting) dismissed the Commission's appeal ( [2001] NI 271).

7

The Lord Chief Justice had agreed to hear the matter even though the Coroner's inquest had gone ahead whilst the proceedings for judicial review were on foot and at a time when no substantive relief could be granted; the Court of Appeal agreed and in my view the Lord Chief Justice was plainly right to take this course.

8

The argument has focused on the provisions of the 1998 Act, the long title of which is "to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of implementing the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883"

9

Section 68 of the Act provided for the creation of the Commission. This was to take the place of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which was constituted under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and whose functions were those of advising and informing the Secretary of State as to the adequacy and effectiveness of the law in preventing discrimination on the ground of religious belief or political opinion and certain related matters.

10

The powers of the Commission are on any view far more extensive than those of the Standing Advisory Commission. In the first place there is an overarching duty to "keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights" (section 69(1)). To that end the Commission is within two years to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to improving the Commission's effectiveness and as to the adequacy and effectiveness of its functions (section 69(2)). It is required to advise the Secretary of State and the Executive Committee of the Assembly of legislative and other measures which ought to be taken to protect human rights either when asked to advise or on its own initiative (section 69(3)). It is empowered to advise the Assembly whether a Bill is compatible with human rights (section 69(4)) to provide advice of the kind referred to in paragraph 4 of the Human Rights section of the Belfast Agreement (section 69(7)). It has an obligation to "promote understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland" (section 69(6)) and for that purpose it can provide assistance for research and educational activities. More specifically in relation to the courts the Commission is empowered by subsection (5)(a) of section 69 to give assistance to individuals in accordance with section 70 where proceedings involving the law and practice relating to human rights in Northern Ireland are involved, and where the Commission considers that a question of principle is involved or where there are special circumstances in which the Commission thinks it appropriate to provide assistance. Such assistance may take the form of legal advice, representation or any other assistance.

11

Even closer to the question now raised is the provision in subsection (5)(b) that the Commission may "bring proceedings involving law or practice relating to the protection of human rights" though that provision does not enable proceedings to be brought on the ground that legislation or an act is incompatible with a Convention right unless the Commission would be a "victim" for the purpose of proceedings brought in the European Court of Human Rights.

12

Since the Act is "for the purpose of implementing" the Belfast Agreement it is relevant to note the emphasis on the "protection and vindication of the human rights of all" in para. 2 of the Declaration of Support in the Agreement. There will, by para. 5 of Strand One of the Agreement, be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community are protected, including (b) the European Convention on Human Rights and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights Commission.

13

By paragraph 5 of the section in Strand Three dealing with "New Institutions in Northern Ireland" (page 17) it is provided that the Commission will be established with an extended and enhanced role beyond that of the Standing Advisory Commission including

"keeping under review the adequacy and effectiveness of laws and practices, making recommendations to Government as necessary; providing information and promoting awareness of human rights; considering draft legislation referred to them by the new Assembly; and, in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so."

14

The Lord Chief Justice accepted that a Coroner had power in principle to permit a person to intervene in an appropriate case and to ask for the assistance of an amicus curiae though the position of the intervener and the amicus had to be distinguished. He was not satisfied that under the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963 (rule 7) the Commission could properly be regarded as having a status which "equates to that of a properly interested person" with the power to examine witnesses. His view was that as a statutory body the Commission

"has only the powers conferred by statute upon it, which will include such powers as may fairly [be] regarded as incidental to or consequential upon those things which the legislature has authorised: cf Attorney-General v Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App Cas 473 at 478, per Lord Selborne L.C.; Wade & Forsyth, Administrative Law 7th Ed. p.219. In order fairly to be regarded as incidental, those powers, if not expressly conferred, must be derived by reasonable implication from the provisions of the legislation: Baroness Wenlock v River Dee Co. (1885) 10 App. Cas 354 at 362-3, per Lord Watson; and cf. Lord Macnaghten's remarks in Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants v Osborne [1910] AC 87 at 97."

15

Even with as broad and sympathetic construction as they would reasonably bear, the Lord Chief Justice was unable to find "anything in the section which confers powers on the Commission to make submissions to courts and tribunals about the content of the law relating to human rights or its application to a particular case." (p.10). He considered that none of the specific provisions of section 69 could be read so as to include such an implied power. In particular subsection (6) concerned with the promotion of understanding and awareness of the importance of human rights was "a proselytising function" and not an advocacy function like the role of an intervener or the non-partisan advisory function of the amicus. He had been asked to have regard to statements in Parliament, but though having doubts as to whether it was permissible to look at these following Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593 he did not consider that they threw any light on the question whether the Commission had a statutory power to make submissions to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Doherty and Another v Sth Dublin County Council and Others
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 October 2006
    ...Act, 2000. He stated that he derived assistance from the decision of the House of Lords in Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2002] NI 236. 21 Quirke J also dealt with an argument concerning the interpretation of the relevant equality legislation in the light of the Race Directiv......
  • NIPSA’s Application and McCord’s (Vivienne) Application
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • 18 February 2014
    ... ... )* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND ________ QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ... section 32(1); (ii) complying with the Human Rights Act 1998; (iii) carrying out the ... the Chief Constable; (c) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; and (d) the Police ... ...
  • Re Termination of Pregnancy Law
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland)
    • 29 June 2017
    ...doubt that the Commission is a creature of statute. As Lord Slynn said in Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (Northern Ireland)[2002] UKHL 25 at paragraph 14: … the Commission has only the powers conferred by statute upon it, which includes such powers as may fairly be regarded as ......
  • The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s Application
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • 30 November 2015
    ...Nicklinson v UK App no 2478/15 (admissibility decision, 23 June 2015, unreported), ECt HR. Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Re[2002] UKHL 25, (2002) Times, 25 June, [2002] All ER (D) 140 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s Application [2013] NICA 37, [2014] NI 263; affg [201......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • The Courts Make a New Friend? Amicus Curiae Jurisdiction in Ireland
    • Ireland
    • Trinity College Law Review No. VII-2004, January 2004
    • 1 January 2004
    ...96 See e.g. The Protector v. Geering (1956) Hardres 86; 145 ER 394. 97 See e.g. Beard v. Travers (1749) 1 Ves. Sen. 313; 27 ER 1052. 98 [2002] UKHL 25. ,9 [2001] NI 271; [2001] NICA 17 (06 April 2001). ooIbid., at para. 17. 2004] [Vol. 7 Trinity College Law Review of equality of arms would ......
  • The House of Lords and the Northern Ireland Conflict – A Sequel
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review No. 69-3, May 2006
    • 1 May 2006
    ...referred to by Lord Hutton applied to154 ibid 298C.155 ibid 290H-291A. Strangely, s12 of the Human Rights Act1998 was not referred to.156 [2002] NI 236; L. Blom-Cooper, ‘Thirdparty intervention and judicial dissent’ [2002] PublicLaw602; A. Smith,‘Access to intervene: The Northern Ireland Hu......
  • Bodies for the promotion of equal treatment (Article 13 Directive 2000/43)
    • European Union
    • Country report. Non-discrimination: transposition and implementation at national level of Council Directives 2000/43 and 2000/78: United Kingdom 201
    • 29 July 2020
    ...House of Lords to confirm that the Commission did have this power: see House of Lords, In re the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission [2002] UKHL 25, [2002] NI 236 20.06.2002, available at: www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2002/25.html . 62 i) Registration by the bodies of complaints and de......
  • National Human Rights Institutions. Criteria and Factors for Assessing Their Effectiveness
    • United Kingdom
    • Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights No. 25-2, June 2007
    • 1 June 2007
    ...op.cit. (note 5), para. A.3.75 Although most of its co sts were later reimbursed .76 In Re Northern Irel and Human Rights Commiss ion, [2002] UKHL 25, 20 June 20 02.77 For further discu ssion on the role of NHRIs at the intern ational and regional levels, s ee Murray, R.,  e Role of Nation......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT