Factual and Procedural Background
Five separate judicial review applications were initiated by individuals identified as Applicants seeking declarations that there had been unlawful delays in commencing inquests into the deaths of their close relatives. These delays were alleged to be incompatible with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The respondents included various State bodies such as the Ministry of Defence, the Police Service of Northern Ireland ("the PSNI"), the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, and the Coroners' Service. The Department of Justice was joined as a notice party due to its funding responsibility for some of these bodies.
Declarations were granted that the delays were unlawful against the particular respondents in each case except the Ministry of Defence. However, the applicants sought damages for feelings of frustration, distress, and anxiety caused by the delays. The respondents and the Department of Justice denied entitlement to damages, arguing that such awards were unnecessary for just satisfaction and lacked a juridical basis. The court joined the Department of Justice as a respondent for the damages claims in the five applications, except in one related application by a separate Applicant.
The court also considered a separate judicial review application brought by another Applicant concerning further delay in commencing an inquest into a relative's death, which had already been the subject of a prior European Court of Human Rights judgment awarding damages. This application raised the question of entitlement to additional damages for the subsequent delay.
Limited personal and relational background information about the applicants and the deceased was presented, with no medical or affidavit evidence detailing the emotional impact of the delays. The court noted the absence of detailed evidence but acknowledged the inherent emotional impact of such delays on next of kin.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the applicants are entitled to an award of damages for the unlawful delay in commencing inquests, in addition to declarations of unlawfulness.
- If damages are appropriate, what is the quantum of such awards for each applicant.
- Whether particular State bodies, including the PSNI and the Department of Justice, are responsible for any award of damages and how such responsibility should be apportioned.
- In the separate application, whether a further award of damages is due given a prior award by the European Court of Human Rights for an earlier period of delay.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants' Arguments
- The applicants contended that the European Court of Human Rights has consistently awarded damages for violations of the promptness requirement under Article 2, typically in the range of £5,000 to £10,000, based on inferred feelings of frustration, distress, and anxiety.
- They argued it is sufficient to rely on inference of emotional harm without the need for detailed personal, medical, or affidavit evidence.
- Each applicant sought damages to provide just satisfaction for the emotional impact of the delays.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents, including the PSNI and the Department of Justice, denied entitlement to damages, submitting that an award was not necessary for just satisfaction and lacked a juridical basis.
- It was argued that damages awards under the Convention are made against the State as a whole rather than individual public authorities, and it would be inequitable to single out one body such as the PSNI for damages when multiple bodies may share responsibility.
- The Department of Justice distinguished between "macro-level" responsibility (government-wide issues) and "micro-level" management by individual bodies, contending it was inappropriate to join the Department in some proceedings.
- The respondents contended that in the absence of evidence of actual harm caused to the applicants, claims for damages should be dismissed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Jordan v United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 327 |
Established violation of Article 2 due to delay in inquest; awarded damages for non-pecuniary damage inferred from delay and relationship. |
Used as primary authority confirming delay violates Article 2 and justifies damages; damages awarded previously and considered in assessing further damages. |
| Shanaghan v United Kingdom |
Violation of Article 2 for failure to carry out prompt and effective investigation; damages awarded based on inferred emotional harm. |
Confirmed principle that damages can be awarded based on inference without direct evidence; damages in similar range noted. |
| McKerr v United Kingdom [2002] 34 EHRR 20 |
Violation of Article 2 procedural obligation; damages awarded for non-pecuniary harm. |
Supported consistent approach to damages for delays in investigations. |
| McShane v United Kingdom [2002] ECHR 469 |
Violation of Article 2 for delay and procedural shortcomings; damages awarded on equitable basis. |
Illustrated variation in damages amount linked to case circumstances; no affidavit or medical evidence required. |
| Brecknell v United Kingdom |
Violation of Article 2 due to lack of independence in investigation; damages awarded for non-pecuniary damage. |
Further example of inferred emotional harm justifying damages. |
| McCaughey & Ors v United Kingdom [2013] ECHR 682 |
Violation of Article 2 due to excessive investigative delays; no damages awarded due to absence of claim. |
Demonstrated that damages are not awarded absent a claim, despite violation. |
| Collette and Michael Hemsworth v United Kingdom |
Violation of Article 2 due to excessive delay; damages awarded with psychiatric evidence supporting harm. |
Noted that medical evidence may support damages but is not strictly required; damages awarded higher but unclear if for multiple applicants or larger harm. |
| Al Skeini v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 18 |
Principles of equity in awarding damages under Article 41; awards reflect moral damage and severity of breach. |
Guided the court’s approach emphasizing equitable, flexible assessment of damages reflecting moral damage. |
| R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 WLR 673 |
Consideration of damages under Human Rights Act 1998; domestic courts should align with Strasbourg principles on compensation. |
Supported the court’s obligation to consider Strasbourg jurisprudence as guiding principle in awarding damages. |
| R (Sturnham) v Parole Board (Nos 1 and 2) [2013] 2 AC 254 |
Factual disputes on causation and harm; court resolved factual dispute in favour of applicants regarding emotional harm. |
Supported inference of emotional harm from unlawful delays without need for direct evidence. |
| H West & Son Limited v Shephard [1964] AC 326 |
Principle that no premium should be placed on protestations of misery in claims for damages. |
Supported court’s approach of inferring emotional harm without requiring explicit evidence of distress. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court recognized that the unlawful delays in commencing inquests constituted breaches of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as conceded by the Department of Justice and found in relation to the PSNI. The court acknowledged the absence of direct evidence of the emotional impact on the applicants but inferred, on the balance of probabilities, that feelings of frustration, distress, and anxiety were caused by the delays. This inference was supported by established Strasbourg jurisprudence and domestic authority, which consistently held that such non-pecuniary damage arises from procedural violations in investigations into deaths.
The court took into account the principles under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which require a finding of unlawfulness, power to award damages, necessity of damages to afford just satisfaction, and consideration of Strasbourg compensation principles. It found these preconditions met in all six cases.
Regarding the separate application involving a prior award of damages, the court considered the exceptional length of further delay (over a decade) and concluded that a further award was justified, albeit reduced in amount to reflect the prior compensation.
On the issue of responsibility for damages, the court held that particular State bodies found to have acted unlawfully could be liable for damages, rejecting any suggestion that only the State as a whole could be responsible. It was appropriate to make the entire award against the PSNI in the separate application, despite the possibility that other bodies might share responsibility, as it was for the liable body to seek contributions if appropriate.
The court also noted the Department of Justice’s position and the distinction between micro- and macro-level responsibilities but found that on the facts, the Department’s joinder was inappropriate at the current stage. It suggested future applications might consider joinder of the Department.
In assessing the amount of damages, the court adopted an equitable approach consistent with Strasbourg awards, settling on a figure of £7,500 for each applicant, reflecting the range of awards in precedent cases and the circumstances of this litigation.
Holding and Implications
The court AWARDED DAMAGES OF £7,500 to each applicant for the unlawful delay in commencing inquests, finding that such awards were necessary to afford just satisfaction for non-pecuniary harm caused by the delays.
The award to the Applicant in the separate application was reduced in light of a prior Strasbourg award but recognized the exceptional additional delay.
The court held that particular State bodies found responsible for unlawful delay may be liable for damages, rejecting the notion that only the State as a whole can be responsible. The PSNI was held liable for the full damages in the separate application.
The Ministry of Defence was dismissed as a respondent without prejudice to future applications.
Costs were awarded against the PSNI in favor of the Applicant, with no costs awarded against the Ministry of Defence.
No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing Strasbourg principles and domestic statutory provisions. The decision clarifies the application of damages awards for procedural breaches of Article 2 in the context of delayed inquests and affirms the court’s power to award damages to next of kin based on inferred emotional harm without direct evidence.