- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
McQuillan, Re Application for Judicial Review
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an appeal from a judicial review application brought by the Applicant seeking a declaration that the proposed further investigation by the Legacy Investigation Branch (LIB) of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) into the death of the deceased, who died on 8 June 1972 at the Glen Road, Belfast, fails to meet the independence requirements under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The initial investigations did not consider military involvement despite new evidence arising from military logs discovered in 2014. The High Court, through Maguire J, delivered two judgments: the first finding that the LIB lacked requisite independence for an Article 2 compliant investigation, and the second concluding that Article 2 did not apply domestically to the investigation due to the timing of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Both the Department of Justice and the Chief Constable appealed the first judgment, and the Applicant appealed the second. The Court of Appeal heard these appeals, treating them as cross-appeals, and undertook a detailed examination of the institutional arrangements, investigatory independence, and relevant legal principles.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Article 2 ECHR applies to the further investigation of the death occurring prior to the commencement of the HRA 1998, in light of new evidence.
- Whether the Legacy Investigation Branch of the PSNI possesses the necessary hierarchical, institutional, and practical independence to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation.
- Whether there exists a procedural legitimate expectation or a common law obligation requiring an independent investigation parallel to Article 2 obligations.
- Whether Maguire J applied the correct legal test regarding public confidence and public perception in assessing independence.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Brecknell v United Kingdom [2008] 46 EHRR 957 | New evidence triggering further investigative obligations under Article 2; institutional independence of investigatory bodies. | Applied to determine that military logs constituted new evidence reviving Article 2 procedural obligations and that PSNI was institutionally distinct from RUC due to reforms. |
| Jordan v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 2 | Requirement of independence of investigators under Article 2, including lack of hierarchical and institutional connection and practical independence. | Used to clarify the nature of independence required for effective investigations. |
| McKerr v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 20 | Effective investigation under Article 2 requires independence and accountability of state agents. | Referenced as foundational authority on procedural obligations under Article 2. |
| Finucane v United Kingdom (2003) ECHR 29178/95 | Independence of investigations in cases involving state agents and collusion. | Considered in relation to institutional and practical independence requirements. |
| Hackett v United Kingdom [2005] | Arrangements to secure practical independence including appointment of external investigators. | Applied as an example of practical independence measures and their sufficiency. |
| Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 | Test for apparent bias based on the perception of a fair-minded and informed observer. | Used as an aid to assess public confidence and perception regarding independence of investigations. |
| Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] UKSC 69 | Common law obligations concerning investigations and the limits of judicial creation of duties in areas regulated by legislation. | Referenced to reject a common law obligation parallel to Article 2 procedural duties. |
| R (On the Application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] AC 271 | Obligation to take into account ECtHR decisions under HRA 1998. | Outlined the approach to Strasbourg jurisprudence in domestic courts. |
| Kelly's Application for Judicial Review [2004] NIQB 72 | Approach to assessing independence of investigations prior to their conclusion. | Endorsed the approach of awaiting investigation outcome to assess practical independence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court divided its reasoning into several parts, beginning with a detailed examination of the factual background surrounding the deceased's death and the subsequent investigations, including the discovery of new military logs which raised the possibility of military involvement previously unconsidered. The Court assessed the institutional responsibility for legacy investigations, tracing the evolution from the Serious Crimes Review Team through the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) to the current Legacy Investigation Branch (LIB), noting significant changes in structure, command, staffing, and investigatory roles.
The Court analysed the legal principles governing investigatory independence under Article 2 ECHR, emphasising the requirement of both lack of hierarchical or institutional connection and practical independence, as established in ECtHR jurisprudence and reinforced by decisions of the Committee of Ministers. It acknowledged the reforms transforming the PSNI and the oversight mechanisms introduced post-Belfast Agreement, including the establishment of the Policing Board and the Police Ombudsman, which collectively underpin institutional independence from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and security forces.
The Court found that while the PSNI is institutionally distinct from the RUC, the LIB lacked demonstrated practical independence at the time of the judgment. This conclusion was informed by the history of investigatory failures, including the initial RUC investigation and the HET review, both marked by potential unconscious bias and failure to investigate military involvement. The Chief Constable had not provided evidence of arrangements to secure practical independence for the LIB investigation, such as the appointment of external senior officers or transparent operational safeguards.
The Court considered the application of the test for apparent bias from Porter v Magill to the context of investigatory independence, recognizing the importance of public confidence and perception. The Court also addressed the temporal application of Article 2 obligations, applying the Brecknell principles and the concept of a genuine connection between the death and the HRA's commencement, concluding that the procedural Article 2 obligation applies to the further investigation given the new evidence and prior investigatory deficiencies.
Regarding procedural legitimate expectation and common law obligations, the Court rejected the existence of a procedural legitimate expectation that the PSNI would voluntarily comply with Article 2 standards absent judicial oversight and affirmed that no parallel common law duty to ensure independent investigations exists, consistent with Supreme Court authorities.
Finally, the Court emphasized the importance of the Chief Constable's obligation to inform victims' families about arrangements securing practical independence and noted the dangers of premature judicial review challenges to investigatory independence before the conclusion of investigations, while allowing for exceptions where arrangements are fundamentally flawed.
Holding and Implications
The Court held that Article 2 ECHR applies to the further investigation of the death and that the Chief Constable is obliged to conduct the investigation in a manner compliant with Article 2 procedural requirements, including securing practical independence of investigators.
The Court allowed the Applicant's appeal against the part of the second judgment denying the application of Article 2 and dismissed the appeals by the Department and the Chief Constable against the finding that the LIB lacked demonstrated practical independence at the time of the first judgment. The Court granted declarations confirming the Chief Constable's obligation to conduct investigations promptly and with arrangements that ensure practical independence and transparency.
The decision imposes a direct effect on the parties, requiring the Chief Constable to establish and demonstrate practical independence in investigations conducted by the LIB. The Court did not establish new legal precedent but reaffirmed and applied established principles from ECtHR jurisprudence and domestic law, emphasizing the necessity of investigatory independence to maintain public confidence and comply with human rights obligations.
Alert