Introduction

In Reprieve & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v. The Prime Minister ([2021] EWCA Civ 972), the England and Wales Court of Appeal addressed significant issues concerning the applicability of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to judicial review proceedings. The case was brought by Reprieve and other claimants challenging the Prime Minister's decision not to hold a public inquiry into alleged state complicity in the unlawful rendition, detention, and mistreatment of individuals post-September 2001 attacks.

The core legal questions revolved around whether Article 6(1) applies to the claim for judicial review and whether the claimants are entitled to disclosure under the standards set in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, determining that Article 6(1) does not apply to the claimants' judicial review. Consequently, the claimants were deemed not to be "victims" under Article 34 of the ECHR, negating their entitlement to disclosure under the AF (No 3) standard. The judgment emphasized that the claim was a public law issue and did not involve the determination of the claimants' civil rights and obligations.

The court also analyzed the scope of Article 6(1), concluding that it is not engaged in proceedings that do not determine civil rights and obligations in a dispositive manner. Furthermore, it affirmed that AF (No 3) disclosure standards do not extend to cases where no allegations are made against the claimant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively engaged with prior case law to elucidate the boundaries of Article 6(1) applicability. Notably, it referenced:

• AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28: Established the standard for disclosure in cases involving state-imposed measures like control orders.
• Ferrazzini v Italy (2002) 34 EHRR 45: Discussed the autonomous meaning of "civil rights and obligations" under the Convention.
• Maaouia v France (2001) 33 EHRR 42: Held that immigration decisions do not determine civil rights.
• Tariq v Home Office [2011] UKSC 35: Distinguished between different contexts in which Article 6(1) applies.
• AKSOY v Turkey (1997) 23 EHRR 553: Recognized personal claims for compensation as matters about civil rights.
• Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyer v Belgium (1982) 4 EHRR 1: Emphasized that decisions must be directly decisive of civil rights.

These precedents collectively shaped the court's interpretation, emphasizing that Article 6(1) is reserved for cases where civil rights and obligations are decisively adjudicated.

Legal Reasoning

The court adopted a structured approach to determine the applicability of Article 6(1):

1. Nature of Proceedings: Determined that the claim was a public law challenge, not a matter determining the claimants' civil rights.
2. Victim Status: Assessed whether the claimants qualified as "victims" under Article 34, concluding they did not.
3. Disclosure Standards: Evaluated whether AF (No 3) should apply, ultimately rejecting this based on the lack of direct allegations against the claimants.

The court emphasized the "hard core of public authority prerogatives," distinguishing between public law disputes and cases that engage individual civil rights.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent criteria for claiming victim status under the ECHR, particularly in public law challenges. It clarifies that not all judicial review claims engaging Convention rights will be subject to Article 6(1), limiting the scope for public interest litigants to invoke higher disclosure standards like AF (No 3).

Future cases involving claims of state complicity or procedural obligations under the ECHR will likely reference this judgment to assess whether claimants meet the victim threshold necessary for invoking procedural rights under Article 6(1).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Victim Status under Article 34 ECHR

AF (No 3) Disclosure Standards

Judicial Review

Conclusion

The Reprieve & Ors v. The Prime Minister judgment delineates the boundaries of Article 6(1) applicability in judicial review contexts, emphasizing the necessity for claimants to be direct "victims" under Article 34 ECHR. By rejecting the claimants' entitlement to AF (No 3) disclosure, the court underscored the limited scope of procedural rights under Article 6(1) in public law challenges.

This decision is pivotal in shaping the landscape of ECHR-related judicial reviews, reaffirming the high threshold for invoking civil procedural rights. It serves as a precedent for future cases, ensuring that only claims with a direct and decisive impact on individual civil rights qualify for robust procedural protections under the Convention.

Ultimately, the judgment balances the state's interest in maintaining national security and administrative prerogatives with the need to protect individual rights, reinforcing the structured application of human rights within the judicial system.