In re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commissions

A statutory corporation possesses both its express powers and powers which, on a fair and liberal construction, are reasonably incidental or consequential to them. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission therefore has capacity to make submissions about human rights law and practice before courts and tribunals, including coroners’ inquests.

That capacity confers no right to intervene. The tribunal retains control and may permit, refuse or invite assistance according to the interests of justice. It must balance the likely assistance against inconvenience, delay, expense and fairness to the parties. The Commission should exercise caution when deciding whether a case warrants intervention.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission sought to make submissions about human rights issues arising at the inquest into the deaths caused by the Omagh bombing. The Coroner ruled that the Commission lacked statutory power to intervene.

On judicial review, Carswell LCJ refused the declarations sought. A majority of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, McCollum LJ and Sir John MacDermott, dismissed the Commission’s appeal; Kerr J dissented: [2001] NI 271.

The central issue before the House was whether the functions conferred by sections 68–71 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 carried, by reasonable implication, capacity to intervene in legal proceedings concerning human rights when the court or tribunal permitted or invited the Commission to do so.

1. Appeal allowed by a majority of four to one. Lord Slynn delivered the leading speech. Lord Woolf, Lord Nolan and Lord Hutton agreed that the Commission possessed the relevant capacity. Lord Hobhouse dissented.

2. Per Lord Slynn, sections 69(1), 69(5), 69(6) and 69(8) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, read together, conferred general functions concerning the review, promotion and understanding of human rights law and practice. The capacity to make submissions to a court or tribunal was reasonably incidental to those express functions. Section 69(5), although not itself an express power to intervene, confirmed that the Commission had a role connected with legal proceedings. Section 69(6) was not confined to public education: submissions could promote judicial understanding of human rights law.

3. Per Lord Woolf and Lord Hutton, the powers of a statutory body must be considered as a whole and in light of the legislative purpose. The established rule that a statutory corporation may exercise powers fairly incidental or consequential to its express powers should be applied liberally. Given the Commission’s express powers to bring proceedings, assist individuals and promote understanding of human rights, its more limited capacity to intervene with the tribunal’s permission followed by reasonable implication.

4. Per Lord Nolan, sections 69(8) and 69(9) provided additional support. Parliament could not sensibly have authorised investigation and publication of conclusions about human rights while intending to prevent the Commission from presenting those conclusions directly when a court requested its assistance.

5. The Commission had capacity, not an enforceable right, to intervene. Per Lord Slynn, Lord Woolf and Lord Hutton, the tribunal retained control of its procedure. It should permit or invite intervention only where the interests of justice would be advanced, balancing possible assistance against inconvenience, delay, expense and fairness to the parties. The Commission should exercise caution before seeking to intervene. The nature of the tribunal did not alter the existence of the capacity.

6. Lord Hobhouse dissented. He considered section 69 to contain a deliberately limited list of functions reflecting the politically sensitive terms of the Belfast Agreement. In his view, participation in litigation could not be implied from the review or educational functions and any enlargement should be made legislatively.

7. The House declared that the Commission could, when permitted or invited, make submissions on human rights law and practice before relevant courts and tribunals and, specifically, at Northern Ireland coroners’ inquests.

1. House of Lords: Allowed the Commission’s appeal by a majority of four to one and granted declarations confirming its capacity to make submissions when permitted or invited.
2. Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland: By a majority, McCollum LJ and Sir John MacDermott, Kerr J dissenting, dismissed the Commission’s appeal: [2001] NI 271.
3. High Court of Northern Ireland: Carswell LCJ upheld the Coroner’s ruling and refused the declarations sought.
4. Coroner: Ruled that the Commission lacked statutory power to intervene in the inquest and therefore refused to permit its intervention.