Al-Saadoon & Others v Secretary of State for Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Leggatt |
| Judgment Date | 17 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: CO/5608/2008; CO/8695/2009; CO/6345/2008; CO/953/2009; CO/9719/2009; CO/12803/2009; CO/1684/2010; CO/2631/2010, C8620/2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 March 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 715 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Leggatt
Case Nos: CO/5608/2008; CO/8695/2009; CO/6345/2008;
CO/9925/2008; CO/11858/2009; CO/11442/2008;
CO/953/2009; CO/9719/2009; CO/12803/2009;
CO/1684/2010; CO/2631/2010, C8620/2010
Michael Fordham QC, Danny FriedmanQC, Dan SquiresandJason Pobjoy (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimants
James Eadie QC, Karen SteynQC andKate Grange (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants
Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Alison Pickup (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Leigh Day Claimants
Hearing dates: 20–23 October 2014
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
| Section | Para No. |
| I. INTRODUCTION | 1 |
| The issues in brief | 6 |
| II. THE BACKGROUND | 11 |
| Phases of British military involvement in Iraq | 11 |
| The invasion period | 12 |
| The occupation period | 13 |
| The post-occupation period | 14 |
| The duty of the state to investigate deaths and ill-treatment | 16 |
| Article 2 | 16 |
| Article 3 | 19 |
| Judicial review claims | 21 |
| IHAT investigations | 25 |
| The Ali Zaki Mousa proceedings | 27 |
| III. ARTICLE 1 – JURISDICTION | 32 |
| Article 1 | 34 |
| Banković v Belgium | 36 |
| Cases after Banković | 38 |
| The Al-Skeini case | 41 |
| Smith v Ministry of Defence | 52 |
| The status of Banković after Al-Skeini | 56 |
| Subsequent decisions of the European Court | 62 |
| The application of the Al-Skeini principles | 65 |
| Effective control over an area | 66 |
| Exercise of public powers | 72 |
| The occupation period | 76 |
| The invasion period | 77 |
| PIL 6: Atheer Kareem Khalaf | 80 |
| The post-occupation period | 84 |
| Exercise of physical power and control | 89 |
| Non-detention cases | 90 |
| Position of the Secretary of State | 93 |
| The position in principle | 95 |
| The actual decision in Al-Skeini | 99 |
| Reliance on Bankovic | 101 |
| Jurisdiction and breach | 108 |
| Going no further than the European Court has gone | 112 |
| Application to the test cases | 117 |
| Other cases | 119 |
| PIL 3 and PIL 7: deaths in a British hospital | 120 |
| PIL 176: killing during a US-led operation | 123 |
| PIL 45 | 128 |
| Rahmatullah and Ali | 131 |
| IV. ARTICLE 3 – HANDOVER | 137 |
| The parties' positions | 140 |
| The ECHR case law | 141 |
| A threshold issue: the Nasseri case | 149 |
| The position in principle | 159 |
| Application to the non-refoulement obligation | 163 |
| The position on authority | 169 |
| The El-Masri case | 174 |
| Dzhurayev v Russia | 180 |
| Conclusion on issue (2) | 186 |
| Issue (4): when does a duty to investigate arise in handover cases? | 187 |
| Perpetrating mistreatment | 188 |
| Complicity in mistreatment | 189 |
| Content of any investigative obligation | 199 |
| Test cases | 200 |
| V. ARTICLE 5 – DETENTION | 203 |
| Issue (5): the claimants' primary case | 204 |
| Enforced disappearance | 208 |
| International law | 209 |
| Convention case law | 216 |
| Other cases | 226 |
| The claimants' alternative case | 231 |
| The El-Masri case | 233 |
| Issue (7): discussion | 240 |
| Application to the test cases | 243 |
| Issue (7A): the effect of IHL | 251 |
| VI. UNCAT | 256 |
| Relevant provisions of UNCAT | 259 |
| Territorial scope of UNCAT | 263 |
| Status of treaties in domestic law | 267 |
| Customary International Law | 270 |
| Scope of article 12 of UNCAT | 274 |
| Reference to UNCAT in interpreting article 3 | 276 |
| VII. ARGUABLE BREACH | 281 |
| Military road traffic cases: PIL 45 | 287 |
| VIII. CONCLUSIONS | 294 |
| Article 1 – jurisdiction | 294 |
| Article 3 – handover | 294 |
| Article 5 – detention | 294 |
| UNCAT and CIL | 294 |
| Arguable breach of articles 2/3 | 294 |
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the legacies of the Iraq war is litigation. Many claims have been brought in the courts of this country arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Although it is now some six years since British forces completed their withdrawal from Iraq, the litigation is not abating. Most of the claims involve allegations of ill-treatment, unlawful detention and, in some cases, unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. These claims fall into two groups.
The first group consists of claims for judicial review in which the claimants are seeking orders from the court to require the Secretary of State for Defence to investigate alleged human rights violations. I will refer to these claims as the "public law claims". At the beginning of 2014 there were 190 public law claims, but since then another 875 claims have been added. I am told by Public Interest Lawyers, who represent all the claimants in the main proceedings brought by Al-Saadoon and others, that they expect at least 165 more claims to be added to the register of claims before the end of March 2015, bringing the total number of claims to at least 1,230. Separate judicial review proceedings have been brought by two individuals, Yunus Rahmatullah and Amanatullah Ali, who are represented by Leigh Day.
The second group of claims consists of claims for compensation brought against the Ministry of Defence. To date, more than 1,000 such claims have been issued: some 294 of these claims have been settled but the rest are still pending. I will refer to these claims as the "private law claims".
This judgment follows a trial of eleven preliminary issues raised by the public law claims. The directions for this trial were agreed between the parties to the Al-Saadoon proceedings and ordered by the court with the aim of clarifying the scope of the duty of the United Kingdom to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by British forces in Iraq. The issues have been argued by reference to the assumed facts of certain cases which the parties have selected as test cases. Because some of the issues are also relevant to the private law claims and to the claims of Mr Rahmatullah and Mr Ali, the claimants represented by Leigh Day also took part in the hearing.
The preliminary issues have required consideration of a large body of law. The bundles of authorities prepared for the hearing contained over 300 cases and other legal materials, many of which were cited in the written arguments. I am grateful to all the parties for their detailed written submissions. Above all, the oral argument was conducted with conspicuous skill and helped to distil the key points in issue.
The issues in brief
The source of the duty on the state to investigate allegations of wrongdoing on which the public law claimants rely is the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Whether, and if so to what extent, the Convention applies to the activities of British armed forces in Iraq has itself been the subject of extensive litigation. It is now clearly established, however, and is accepted by the Secretary of State, that anyone who was taken into the custody of British forces in Iraq had certain rights under the Convention which the United Kingdom was bound to respect: in particular, the right to life under article 2, the right under article 3 not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and the right to liberty under article 5. It is also clearly established that where a person who is within the jurisdiction of a Convention state is killed by agents of the state or dies in state custody or makes a credible allegation of torture or other serious ill treatment by state agents, the state has a duty to carry out an investigation. That investigation must be independent and it must be effective.
There are, however, two major areas of controversy about the scope of the duty to investigate which are the focus of the present preliminary issues. The first is whether, and if so when, the Convention applied to the use of force against Iraqi civilians who were not in the custody of British forces. In particular, the Secretary of State does not accept that (save during the period when the UK was an occupying power) individuals who were killed during security operations carried out by British forces in Iraq were "within [the UK's] jurisdiction" for the purpose of article 1 of the Convention such that the UK was bound to secure their right to life under article 2. If this is correct, it follows that the UK has no duty under the Convention to investigate the deaths of such individuals. The claimants dispute this and argue that the UK's jurisdiction under article 1 is of wider scope. The first preliminary issue is aimed at resolving this dispute.
The second major area of controversy is the extent to which, where individuals were within the jurisdiction of the UK, there is a duty to investigate alleged violations of their rights. As mentioned, it is clear that such a duty arises in cases of suspected unlawful killing or serious ill-treatment. Two main points, however, are in dispute. One is whether, and if so when, the duty to investigate allegations of a violation of article 3 applies in cases where the nature of the allegation is not that the claimant was tortured or mistreated by British forces but that he was handed over to United States or Iraqi authorities in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tag Eldin Ramadan Bashir & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Legal Department, for the Secretary of State. Cases referred to: Al-Saadoon and Others v Secretary of State for DefenceUNK [2015] EWHC 715 (Admin); [2015] 3 WLR 503; [2015] All ER (D) 198 (Mar) Al-Skeini and Others v United Kingdom 2011 ECHR 55721/07; (2011) 53 EHRR 18 Bashir and Others v A......
-
R (Bashir and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...The position in Al-Skeini (helpfully and thoroughly analysed by Leggatt J in R (Al-Saadoon and Ors) v. Secretary of State for Defence[2015] 3 WLR 503) was very different from the position in this case. That case concerned the human rights of those individuals over whom, in the immediate pos......
-
Al-Saadoon v Defence Secretary
... ([2015] EWHC 715 (Admin) and [2016] EWCA Civ 811) England, High Court, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court). Court of Appeal (Leggatt (Arden, Tomlinson and Lloyd Jones LJJ) Al-Saadoon and Others and Secretary of State for Defence 1 Rahmatullah and Another and Secretary of State fo......
-
Dr. Vesna Kontic and Others v The Ministry of Defence
...80 of the Grand Chamber decision. I need not repeat them here. 174 I am also assisted by the decision of Leggatt J in Al Saadoon v Secretary of State for Defence (2015) 3 WLR 503. At paragraph 67, he wrote: "Although the obligation to secure the entire range of Convention rights is the con......
-
International humanitarian law in the African Commission’s General Comment No 3 on the Right to Life: A critical and comparative analysis
...No 3 op cit note 6 para 32.113 Heyns and Pr obert op cit note 76 at 64–65.114 Al Saadoon and Othe rs v Secretary of St ate for Defence [2015] EWHC 715 para 111: ‘where the armed forces of a state kill someone i n the course of an armed conict the ki lling will be lawful pr ovided it is con......