Lin & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

The claimants, bereaved relatives of a victim of the Potters Bar rail crash, challenged the Secretary of State's decision of 8 December 2005 not to order a public inquiry. The central legal issue was whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights imposed a duty on the State to institute a public inquiry rather than to rely on existing investigations and a forthcoming renewed inquest.

The court applied the Article 2 investigative-duty principles as explained in Middleton and related Strasbourg authorities, stressing a sliding scale of investigatory intensity depending on the extent to which state agents may have been implicated. The judge examined the prior investigations (three HSE reports including an Investigation Board under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, British Transport Police enquiries, and other technical reviews), the independence of the HSE Investigation Board and its findings, the CPS decision on manslaughter, and the stated arrangements for a renewed inquest to be conducted by a High Court judge.

Concluding that the combination of the existing investigations and a properly conducted, enhanced inquest (with appropriate participation by the bereaved, disclosure, powers to call witnesses and the coroner's Rule 43 recommendations) would meet the State's Article 2 obligations in this case, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether Article 2 required a State-initiated public inquiry or whether state agents were potentially in breach of substantive duties. The challenge to the Secretary of State's decision was therefore dismissed.

Background and parties: The claimants are the parents of Chia Hsin Lin who died in the Potters Bar derailment on 10 May 2002. They sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to order a public inquiry. The application was supported by other bereaved relatives and some injured persons. Interested parties included the Office of Rail Regulator, Health and Safety Executive, Network Rail, Jarvis Rail Ltd and others.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimants sought an order requiring the Secretary of State to hold a public inquiry into the crash, arguing that Article 2 ECHR required the State to institute such an inquiry because the renewed inquest would not satisfy the State's investigative duty.

Issues framed: (i) The scope and intensity of the Article 2 investigative duty and when it requires a State-initiated inquiry; (ii) whether state agents might be implicated so as to require a fuller inquiry; (iii) whether the combination of prior investigations and the proposed renewed inquest would satisfy Article 2; and (iv) participation rights of bereaved families at inquests and inquiries.

Facts and procedural posture: The court reviewed the sequence of investigations: initial HSE reports (including a section 14(2)(a) Investigation Board), further interim HSE reports, a Rail Safety and Standards Board report, substantial police investigations and the CPS decision not to bring manslaughter charges in October 2005. Structural changes in rail regulation and operation since the crash (transfer of functions, Network Rail, RSSB, Railways Act 2005) were noted. The Secretary of State had decided not to hold a public inquiry in a letter dated 8 December 2005, relying on completed and ongoing investigations and the coroner's proposed full inquest; the coroner later appointed a High Court judge to act as deputy coroner for the renewed inquest.

Court's reasoning: The court reviewed Strasbourg and domestic case-law (including Middleton and Amin) establishing that Article 2 may require the State to initiate an investigation, but that the necessary intensity depends on whether state agents may bear responsibility and on the public interest in accountability. The judge applied the Middleton test (whether there may have been a substantive violation by a state agent as to taking life or failing to establish adequate protective framework) and considered whether the existing investigatory processes plus a properly conducted enhanced inquest would discharge Article 2. He found the HSE Investigation Board to be independent, that the accumulated investigations had identified causes and made recommendations, and that the appointed High Court judge, powers of the coroner (including disclosure, witness compulsion and Rule 43 reports) and funding arrangements made it likely the renewed inquest would be an enhanced inquest meeting Article 2 standards.

Subsidiary findings and context: The judge recorded concern about Jarvis Rail Ltd's refusal to accept aspects of the HSE/RSSB findings and its denial of liability, and acknowledged the bereaved's desire for 'face-to-face' accountability. He noted the Secretary of State's undertaking to reconsider if fresh material emerged or if the inquest proved insufficient.

Conclusion and remedy: Because the combination of investigations and the promised enhanced inquest would satisfy Article 2 obligations in this case, it was unnecessary to decide whether Article 2 independently required a public inquiry or whether state agents were potentially in breach. The challenge to the decision not to hold a public inquiry was dismissed. The judgment records that the Secretary of State had indicated he would reconsider if the inquest was materially deficient or fresh evidence arose.

The application for judicial review is dismissed. The court held that, applying Article 2 ECHR principles as explained in Middleton and related authorities, the combination of the prior independent investigations (notably the HSE Investigation Board under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and associated reports), ongoing police inquiries and the forthcoming enhanced inquest to be conducted by a High Court judge would satisfy the State's investigative obligations under Article 2 in this case. For that reason it was unnecessary to determine whether Article 2 required a separate public inquiry or whether state agents were potentially in breach of substantive obligations; the Secretary of State's decision not to order a public inquiry was therefore lawful.