R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Article 2 imposes both substantive duties to protect life and an adjectival duty to investigate deaths where the substantive right may have been breached.

The investigative duty is engaged by deaths in State custody, including deaths caused by another prisoner or suicide. Its requirements are flexible. Public scrutiny and family participation are important but are not invariably separate and cumulative requirements.

All investigative measures must be assessed pragmatically and in the round. Civil proceedings alone will not generally suffice, although their practical availability is relevant. An inquest may, where necessary to comply with Article 2, permit a finding of system neglect without naming an individual as liable.

These conjoined appeals concerned deaths in custody. In Amin, Zahid Mubarek was murdered by his cellmate at Feltham Young Offenders’ Institution. Hooper J declared that Article 2 required an independent public investigation in which the family could participate and cross-examine witnesses.

In Middleton, Colin Middleton died by suicide in prison. Stanley Burnton J declared that the restriction placed on the inquest verdict made the inquest inadequate under Article 2.

The Court considered when the procedural duty to investigate arises, the flexibility of its requirements, whether the investigations in Amin were sufficient, and whether the coronial rules could be read compatibly with Article 2 and the Human Rights Act 1998.

1. Amin. The appeal was allowed. Article 2 creates substantive obligations to maintain legal protection for life, refrain from intentional deprivation of life except within Article 2(2), and take reasonable operational measures where the authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk to an identified person. It also creates an adjectival investigative obligation, developed as a corollary of the substantive right.
2. The investigative obligation is not confined to deaths caused by unlawful force by State agents. A death in State custody at the hands of another prisoner, or by suicide, can engage it. The required investigation depends on the circumstances. A credible allegation of murder or manslaughter by State agents calls for the highest degree of rigour and independence. An allegation of negligence leading to a custody death has a different quality.
3. The requirements identified in Jordan and Edwards are not a fixed formula. Public scrutiny and next-of-kin participation are important, but they need not be separate and cumulative requirements in every case. The court must assess all investigative processes pragmatically and in the round. A bare possibility of civil proceedings will not generally satisfy Article 2, although practical civil remedies remain relevant.
4. In Amin, the Director General had accepted responsibility and invited the family to participate in the Butt inquiry. The killer’s conviction established the primary responsibility for the death. The police investigation disclosed no basis for prosecuting Prison Service personnel, the Butt inquiry addressed systemic failings and made recommendations, the family had sufficient information to pursue civil proceedings, and the Commission for Racial Equality was examining the racial dimension. In those circumstances no separate public inquiry was required and the State had not violated Article 2.
5. Middleton. The Coroners Act 1988 and Coroners Rules 1984 ordinarily restrict an inquest to fact-finding and prevent a verdict appearing to determine civil liability. Under sections 6(1) and 6(2)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, however, a coroner must read the rules compatibly with Convention rights where the inquest is being used to discharge the State’s Article 2 duty. Rule 42 could therefore be construed as preventing an individual from being named, while allowing a finding of system neglect where necessary to reduce the risk of similar deaths. The appeal was allowed in part. Amin was subject to detailed assessment of costs; Ms Middleton received half her costs; a declaration was to be drafted; and leave to appeal was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed the Amin appeal and allowed the Middleton appeal in part.
2. Queen’s Bench Division, Hooper J declared that an independent public investigation with family participation was required under Article 2 in Amin.
3. Queen’s Bench Division, Stanley Burnton J declared that the Middleton inquest was inadequate under Article 2 because of the restriction on the verdict.