McKenna's (Mary) Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Maguire J |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] NIQB 96 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 27 October 2017 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2017] NIQB 96
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: MAG10414
Delivered: 27/10/2017
2015/005573/01
2015/48142/01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY FRANCIS McGUIGAN FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARY McKENNA FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE
POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND BASED ON A REVIEW BY THE
HISTORIC ENQUIRIES TEAM OF EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE TORTURE
OF MR McGUIGAN AND OTHERS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS AND ONGOING FAILURES OF THE
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE POLICE SERVICE OF NORTHERN IRELAND,
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE
NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE
________
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................... [1]-[7]
Part A
The arrest and detention of the 12 men (August 1971) and of the two
further men (October (1971) .......................................................................... [8]-[11]
The use of the in-depth interrogation ......................................................... [12]-[13]
Ministerial Briefing ......................................................................................... [14]
2
The Five Techniques ...................................................................................... [15]
The circumstances of the applicants
Mr McGuigan ................................................................................................. [16]-[20]
Mr McKenna ................................................................................................... [21]-[23]
The immediate aftermath of internment .................................................... [24]
The Compton Inquiry .................................................................................... [25]-[39]
The Parker Inquiry .......................................................................................... [40]-[48]
Civil claims ...................................................................................................... [49]
The inter-state case before the European Commission
for Human Rights .......................................................................................... [50]-[51]
The role of the Commission .......................................................................... [52]
Steps taken by the Commission ................................................................... [53]-[60]
Some aspects of the parties’ submissions ................................................... [61]-[68]
Medical evidence ............................................................................................ [69]
The Commission’s findings in respect of the evidence ............................ [70]-[74]
Outcome .......................................................................................................... [75]-[77]
The inter-state case before the European Court of Human Rights ......... [78]
How the case came to be before the court .................................................. [79]-[81]
Steps before the court .................................................................................... [82]
Outcome .......................................................................................................... [83]-[88]
The scope of the inter-state case in the areas of inspection/punishment
of offenders ..................................................................................................... [89]
Criminal liability for what occurred 1971-78 ............................................. [90]-[92]
Events after the judgment of the ECHR ..................................................... [93]-[98]
Uncovery of materials from the National Archives .................................. [99]-[100]
The RTÉ programme ..................................................................................... [101]-[119]
Events at the Policing Board ......................................................................... [120]-[122]
Action to look into the position ................................................................... [123]-[137]
PART B
Documents supplied to the court ................................................................ [138]-[141]
Ministerial knowledge/authorisation ........................................................ [142]-[154]
The issue of possible prosecution ................................................................ [155]-[158]
3
Assurances given to the RUC ....................................................................... [159]-[165]
The depth of the investigation ..................................................................... [166]-[167]
Materials relating to the issue of the independence of the PSNI ............ [168]-[170]
Requests to the Irish Attorney General and Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland ............................................................................................ [171]-[176]
PART C
Summary of Court’s assessment .................................................................. [177]-[178]
PART D
Legal issues before the Court ....................................................................... [179]-[183]
PART E
The legal landscape ........................................................................................ [184]-[190]
The problem of the efflux of time ................................................................ [191]-[224]
The Brecknell doctrine ................................................................................... [225]-[232]
Independence as a feature of Article 2 ........................................................ [233]-[236]
PART F
The Court’s Assessment of the Issues
Articles 2 and 3 – the Convention issue ...................................................... [237]-[239]
What would Strasbourg do on the facts of these cases? ........................... [240]-[246]
Convention values test .................................................................................. [247]-[258]
Is the Brecknell Test met? .............................................................................. [259]-[263]
Is McKerr still good in law? .......................................................................... [264]-[274]
Independence ................................................................................................. [275]-[284]
The common law issue .................................................................................. [285]-[292]
Has there been a breach of customary international law? ....................... [293]-[298]
Rationality ....................................................................................................... [299]-[311]
Legitimate expectation .................................................................................. [312]-[314]
Strasbourg misled? .......................................................................................... [315]-[316]
PART G
Conclusions ..................................................................................................... [317]-[318]
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
McQuillan, Re Application for Judicial Review
...in part)([2021] NI 15) the court: (1) Dismissed appeals by Francis McGuigan and Mary McKenna against the dismissal by Mr Justice Maguire([2017] NIQB 96) of their judicial review claims for a new investigation into the authorisation of the ill-treatment of, inter alios, Francis McGuigan and ......
-
McQuillan's (Margaret) Application
...2 in domestic law by reference to his detailed and comprehensive judgment in Re McGuigan’s Application and Re McKenna’s Application [2017] NIQB 96. At paragraph [43] of his judgment dated 13 April 2018 the judge held that “ultimately … the decision in McKerr [2004] 1 WLR 807 remained the go......
-
McQuillan's (Margaret) Application
...As this court has recently considered the matter in some detail in its decision in Re McGuigan’s Application; Re McKenna’s Application [2017] NIQB 96 (“the Hooded Men case”), it will adopt the approach to the issue which is found in that judgment, without repeating it: see, in particular, P......
-
Republic of Poland v Kamil Czerwonobroda
...example, the Scottish decision of Lord Advocate v M (R) [2021] 12 WLUK. 20 See Re F [2017] (Sir Paul Girvan) and Re McKenna’s Application [2017] NIQB 96 at para 318 Note 3 (Maguire J) 24 [67] In these circumstances the fact that he has, it appears to date, served in the region of 1.5 years ......