OOO & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

An investigative duty under Articles 3 and 4 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms arises when the police receive a credible allegation of an infringement, however the information comes to their attention. It does not depend on a complaint by an identified victim.

Once triggered, the duty requires an effective investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible, although it is an obligation of means. The investigation must proceed promptly, or urgently where the victim remains in a harmful situation. Resource constraints and Convention safeguards remain relevant, but an egregious failure is not required.

Four young Nigerian women claimed that they had been trafficked into the United Kingdom as children, subjected to domestic servitude and abuse, and inadequately protected by the Metropolitan Police. They alleged that officers failed to investigate credible information concerning breaches of Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention.

The central issues were when the investigative duty arose, whether it depended on a victim’s complaint or identification, whether the police had breached that duty, and whether declarations and damages were necessary remedies.

1. The claimants’ treatment breached Articles 3 and 4. The defendant accepted that the police service was a public authority and that those Articles imposed positive obligations.
2. Following Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia [2010] 51 EHRR 1, the investigative duty under Article 4 arises once the authorities receive a credible allegation of trafficking or exploitation. It does not depend on a complaint by the victim or next of kin. The same scope applies under Article 3.
3. The investigation must be independent, effective and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is an obligation of means, not result. It must be undertaken promptly or with reasonable expedition, and urgently where the victim remains in a harmful situation. The duty must not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden, and police action remains subject to Convention safeguards including Articles 5 and 8.
4. The preventive test in Osman v United Kingdom [2000] 29 EHRR 245 could not determine the scope of a historical investigative duty. The common law did not narrow the Convention duty. The absence of an identified victim could affect credibility, priorities or practical feasibility, but did not prevent the duty arising.
5. The duty arose in July 2006 when credible and detailed information about serious breaches was given to the Paladin officers. No effective investigation commenced. It also arose, independently, during 2007 when the police had access to the claimants’ detailed statements. The failures breached the claimants’ Convention rights.
6. Each claimant was directly affected by the failure and was therefore a victim for section 7 purposes. A declaration was inadequate by itself. Applying section 8, each claimant was awarded £5,000 for frustration and anxiety caused by the failure to investigate between 2007 and December 2008.