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

The House of Lords held that article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposes a procedural obligation on the State to carry out an effective investigation when a person dies in custody. That obligation includes minimum standards identified in Strasbourg jurisprudence: the investigation must be independent, effective (capable of identifying those responsible and securing evidence), reasonably prompt, involve a sufficient element of public scrutiny and provide for appropriate involvement of the next of kin. The court concluded that the investigations already carried out (police criminal enquiries, a private internal Prison Service inquiry by Mr Butt, and a partly private inquiry by the Commission for Racial Equality) did not, singly or cumulatively, meet those minimum standards. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and restored the High Court order requiring an independent public investigation in which the family could be legally represented and able to test material and witnesses. The judgment referred to the domestic framework for investigation of deaths in custody, including the Coroners Act 1988 (section 8) and the rules for inquests, as relevant to satisfying the article 2 procedural duty.

The appellant, an uncle of Zahid Mubarek who was murdered in March 2000 while a prisoner at Feltham Young Offender Institution, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's refusal to order an independent public inquiry into the circumstances of the death. The High Court (Hooper J) had declared that the refusal breached article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered a public independent investigation with legal representation for the family. The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and set aside that order ([2002] EWCA Civ 390). The case came to the House of Lords to determine whether the United Kingdom had discharged the procedural obligation under article 2 to investigate deaths in custody and, if not, whether a public independent inquiry was required.

Nature of the claim/application:

• Application for judicial review seeking a declaration that the refusal to hold an independent public inquiry into the death of a prisoner breached article 2 ECHR and associated relief to secure such an inquiry.

Issues framed by the court:

• What are the minimum requirements of the procedural obligation arising under article 2 where a person dies in custody?
• Whether the investigations already undertaken (police criminal investigation, Mr Butt's internal Prison Service inquiry, the Commission for Racial Equality investigation and the criminal trial) fulfilled those requirements.
• Whether publicity and next-of-kin participation are discrete, mandatory elements in every case or whether the form and intensity of inquiry may vary with circumstances.

Reasoning and disposition:

The House reviewed Strasbourg authority (including McCann, Osman, Jordan and Edwards) and domestic law on investigation of deaths in custody. It accepted that member states have a margin as to the method of investigation, but held that Strasbourg has laid down minimum standards which must be met whatever method is chosen. Those minimum standards include independence, effectiveness, promptness, public scrutiny to an extent sufficient to secure accountability in practice, and appropriate involvement of the next of kin. Applying those standards to the facts, the Lords concluded that the Butt inquiry lacked the requisite institutional independence and public character; the CRE inquiry was limited to racial issues and largely private; the police advice not to prosecute left unanswered questions; and the criminal trial concentrated on the defendant's mental responsibility rather than systemic issues. The cumulative effect was insufficient to satisfy article 2. The House therefore allowed the appeal and restored the High Court order requiring an independent public inquiry in which the family could be legally represented and participate effectively.

Appeal allowed. The House concluded that the United Kingdom had not discharged the procedural investigative duty under article 2 in this case because the inquiries conducted (police, the Butt internal inquiry and the CRE inquiry) lacked the required combination of independence, effectiveness, public scrutiny and adequate involvement of the next of kin. The judge's order for an independent public investigation with legal representation for the family was restored.

High Court (Administrative Court), Hooper J: application upheld — [2001] EWHC Admin 719. Court of Appeal: appeal allowed and High Court order set aside — [2002] EWCA Civ 390. Appeal to House of Lords: [2003] UKHL 51, appeal allowed and High Court order restored.