Delayed Inquests and ECHR Article 2: Comprehensive Legal Commentary on Jordan & Ors v Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 71

1. Introduction

The case of Jordan & Ors v Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 71 adjudicated by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland's Queen's Bench Division delves into the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This case consolidates five separate judicial review applications initiated by Hugh Jordan, Kathleen Ryan, Christina McCusker, Colette McConville, Anne McMenamin, and Jordan Brown (a minor), each seeking declarations that delays in commencing inquests into their relatives' deaths violated their rights under Article 2 of the ECHR and Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The key issues revolve around whether the delays in inquests conducted by various State bodies, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and the Coroners' Service, constituted a breach of the procedural right to a prompt and effective investigation as mandated by Article 2. Additionally, the applicants sought damages for the emotional distress caused by these delays.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The court acknowledged that the Department of Justice admitted delays in commencing inquests were unlawful and incompatible with Article 2 of the ECHR. Declarations were granted against the specific State bodies responsible for these delays, excluding the MOD in cases where it was not directly implicated. However, the pursuit of damages presented a complex legal question.

The High Court examined precedents from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning non-pecuniary damages awarded for delays in inquests. It concluded that awarding damages is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the applicants. Each applicant was awarded £7,500, with specific directions for those involving minors. The Court also addressed the responsibility of individual State bodies, holding them accountable for the entirety of the damages where they were found responsible for unlawful delays.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced decisions from the ECtHR, establishing a consistent approach to awarding damages for breaches of procedural obligations under Article 2. Key cases include:

Jordan v United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 327 – Established that delays in inquests can amount to a violation of Article 2, resulting in non-pecuniary damages.
Shanaghan v United Kingdom [2001] ECHR – Reinforced the principle that procedural delays cause emotional distress warranting compensation.
McKerr v United Kingdom [2002] EHRR 20 – Affirmed the award of damages for delays, even in cases involving tragic circumstances.
McShane v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 469 – Highlighted factors contributing to delays, such as non-disclosure of documents, resulting in lower damage awards.
Brecknell v United Kingdom [2008] ECHR – Discussed the role of independent investigations in the context of delays.
McCaughey & Ors v UK [2013] ECHR 682 & Collette and Michael Hemsworth v UK – Addressed larger systemic issues delaying inquests, though with varying outcomes in damage awards.

Additionally, the High Court referred to domestic precedents like R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] and principles outlined in the White Paper "Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill" to guide the interpretation of damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court's reasoning hinged on establishing that delays in inquests are not mere administrative oversights but significant procedural violations that impinge upon human dignity and the right to life as stipulated in Article 2. By leveraging ECtHR's precedents, the Court inferred that such delays inherently cause emotional distress, justifying non-pecuniary damages under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Furthermore, the Court analyzed the applicability of Section 8(3) and (4), which outline the criteria for awarding damages, emphasizing that while the Act does not create a tort framework, it aligns closely with international human rights obligations. The judgment underscored that the Human Rights Act intended to replicate the remedies available under the Convention domestically, thereby validating the pursuit of damages without necessitating exhaustive personal evidence of distress.

In resolving disputes about which State bodies should be held accountable, the Court favored a pragmatic approach, holding the responsible body fully liable unless it successfully apportioned blame to others. This approach ensures that victims are not left without recourse due to procedural complexities within governmental structures.

3.3 Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Northern Irish jurisprudence by affirming the availability of damages for procedural delays in public inquests under human rights law. It reinforces the obligation of State bodies to adhere to timely investigative processes, thereby promoting accountability and upholding the dignity of victims’ families.

Future cases involving delays in legal or investigative processes can draw upon this judgment to argue for similar remedies, potentially leading to broader systemic reforms aimed at preventing such delays. Additionally, it clarifies the scope of responsibility among different State entities, ensuring that accountability is appropriately assigned.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Article 2 guarantees the right to life, but its procedural aspect mandates that states conduct prompt and effective investigations into deaths, especially those involving state actors. Delays in such inquiries can violate this right.

4.2 Judicial Review

Judicial review is a legal process where courts examine the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. In this case, the applicants sought judicial review to challenge delays in inquests conducted by State bodies.

4.3 Non-Pecuniary Damages

These are compensations awarded for non-material harm, such as emotional distress, rather than for direct financial losses. The Court awarded non-pecuniary damages to acknowledge the emotional suffering caused by delays in inquest proceedings.

4.4 Sections of the Human Rights Act 1998

- Section 6: It is unlawful for public authorities to act in ways that are incompatible with ECHR rights.
- Section 8: Allows courts to grant remedies, including damages, when there is a breach of ECHR rights.

5. Conclusion

The judgment in Jordan & Ors v Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 71 represents a pivotal development in the enforcement of human rights within Northern Ireland’s legal framework. By affirming the entitlement to non-pecuniary damages for procedural delays in inquests, the Court not only acknowledges the profound emotional impact on victims' families but also enforces a higher standard of diligence and accountability among State bodies.

This decision underscores the judiciary's role in upholding human dignity and ensuring that governmental processes do not infringe upon fundamental rights. It sends a clear message that undue delays in legal or investigative procedures are unacceptable and that victims are entitled to redress, thereby reinforcing the protective ambit of the Human Rights Act 1998.