Regina v. Secretary of State for The Home Department (Respondent) ex parte Amin (FC) (Appellant)

Article 2 imposes a procedural duty to investigate a death in state custody where the state may have failed to protect life. The same minimum standards apply whether the suspected failure consists of lethal acts by state agents or systemic or negligent omissions which permit another person to kill.

The state may choose the form of investigation and may rely on several processes together. The investigation must nevertheless be independent, effective and reasonably prompt. It must provide sufficient public scrutiny and involve the next of kin to the extent necessary to protect their legitimate interests. Processes which collectively lack institutional independence, public accountability and effective family participation do not discharge that duty.

Zahid Mubarek was murdered by his cellmate while detained at Feltham Young Offender Institution. Information held by the Prison Service indicated that the cellmate was dangerous and had displayed violent and racist behaviour. The Prison Service accepted responsibility for the death.

The criminal trial, police investigations, an internal Prison Service inquiry and an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality examined different aspects of the death. There was no resumed inquest. The deceased's family contended that the processes did not provide an independent public investigation in which they could participate effectively.

Hooper J upheld the claim for judicial review and declared that such an investigation was required: [2001] EWHC Admin 719. The Court of Appeal allowed the Home Secretary's appeal and set aside that order: [2002] EWCA Civ 390; [2003] QB 581. The issue before the House was whether the United Kingdom had discharged its investigative obligation under article 2.

1. Disposition. The House unanimously allowed the appeal and restored Hooper J's order. Lord Bingham delivered the leading speech. Lord Slynn, Lord Steyn and Lord Hope gave supporting reasons, and Lord Hutton expressly agreed with Lord Bingham.

2. Per Lord Bingham, the state owes a particular duty to people involuntarily in its custody. It must take reasonable care to protect them from avoidable harm, including violence by state agents, other detainees and themselves. Where a death or life-threatening injury occurs in custody, article 2 may impose a procedural duty to establish the circumstances and secure accountability.

3. Per Lord Bingham, the European jurisprudence, particularly Jordan v United Kingdom and Edwards v United Kingdom, established minimum requirements for an effective official investigation. It must be independent in institutional, hierarchical and practical terms; capable of establishing the cause of death and responsibility; reasonably prompt; subject to sufficient public scrutiny; and open to appropriate participation by the next of kin. Lord Slynn agreed that these minimum standards should be followed in the absence of good reason. Lord Steyn emphasised that Edwards v United Kingdom applied the same standards to negligent omissions as to lethal acts by state agents.

4. Per Lord Bingham, article 2 prescribes no single model of investigation. A state may select a suitable procedure and may satisfy the duty through several processes considered cumulatively. That flexibility does not permit dilution of the minimum standards. The Court of Appeal therefore erred by treating deaths attributable to negligent or systemic custodial failures as requiring a less exacting investigation. Lord Hope agreed that failures permitting one prisoner to kill another may require investigation as rigorous as, or more rigorous than, a deliberate killing by a state agent.

5. Per Lord Bingham, the processes undertaken did not meet the minimum standard, separately or together. The police inquiries and murder trial addressed limited questions. The internal inquiry lacked institutional and hierarchical independence, was private and afforded the family no effective role. The race-discrimination inquiry was largely private, offered no effective family participation and could not address issues beyond its statutory remit. Even the more independent inquiry considered in Edwards v United Kingdom had been inadequate because of comparable deficiencies.

6. Per Lord Bingham, an independent public investigation was therefore required, with the family legally represented, given relevant material and able to question the principal witnesses. The investigator could rely on established findings and written material so that the inquiry remained focused. Lord Hope added, as supplementary guidance, that its conduct and scope should be as close as practicable to the Scottish fatal-accident-inquiry model, although statutory coercive powers would be unavailable.

1. House of Lords: The appeal in Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Amin was allowed unanimously. The Court of Appeal's decision was reversed and Hooper J's order restored: [2003] UKHL 51.
2. Court of Appeal: The Home Secretary's appeal was allowed and Hooper J's declaration was set aside: [2002] EWCA Civ 390; [2003] QB 581.
3. High Court: Hooper J upheld the judicial-review claim and declared that article 2 required an independent public investigation in which the family was legally represented, received relevant material and could cross-examine principal witnesses: [2001] EWHC Admin 719.