AM & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

A breach of the Article 3 investigative duty may warrant just satisfaction under the Human Rights Act 1998 beyond token compensation. The assessment may include distress and frustration caused by the absence of an impartial inquiry. Where related claims for personal harm remain unresolved, the court should avoid fixing compensation speculatively. The issue may be remitted for a fact-sensitive decision alongside those claims.

Following the handing down of the Court of Appeal’s earlier judgment concerning disturbances, the court had dealt with all consequential matters except the claimants’ application under s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for just satisfaction for breach of the Home Office’s duty of inquiry under Article 3 of the ECHR.

The claimants sought compensation for losing the benefit of an independent inquiry. The Home Office argued that the failure was not a separate wrong, or that any award should be merely token. The issue was whether compensation should be determined immediately or with the stood-over individual civil claims.

1. The court declined to make an immediate award. The proceedings combined public law claims, requiring sufficient interest for standing, with civil causes of action stood over for trial.
2. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrated that token compensation is not always sufficient for breach of the Article 3 investigative duty. Just satisfaction may include distress and frustration caused by the state’s refusal to examine impartially what occurred. Iliev v Bulgaria and Dzeladinov v Macedonia illustrated that pragmatic approach.
3. The significance of the lost inquiry could not safely be assessed in isolation. If a claimant established personal injury, false imprisonment, or inhuman or degrading treatment, the omission might recede in importance. In other circumstances it might assume real significance. An award at this stage would therefore be speculative.
4. The issue was remitted to the Queen’s Bench Division for determination with the individual damages claims. The trial judge was to decide, in the light of s.8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998, whether an award was necessary and, if so, its amount.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): remitted the issue of just satisfaction under s.8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the Queen’s Bench Division for determination with the individual damages claims.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: proceedings before Mr Justice Mitting are identified, but the judgment gives no citation or outcome for the decision under appeal.