Landmark Judgment Explores Human Rights Procedural Obligations in Police Conduct Investigations

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3300 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the significant case of Eileen Dunne & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Independent Office for Police Conduct ([2023] EWHC 3300 (Admin)), Mr Justice Ritchie delivers a comprehensive analysis touching on the core aspects of human rights, specifically Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in relation to police conduct and the procedural obligations of investigative bodies. This case presents itself as a landmark judgment, providing clarity on the extent of the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) duties when investigating incidents involving potentially lethal force exercised by police officers.

Key Facts

The case involves the investigation into an incident where FD, a member of the public, sustained life-threatening injuries following a strike on the head with a rifle muzzle by a police officer, TP7, identified here as the Interested Party. The IOPC conducted an investigation but did not provide the complainants—FD and his mother—with access to evidence gathered, including Body Worn Video (BWV) footage and detailed reports, thereby limiting their participation in the investigation process.

The Defendant, IOPC, initially decided that no criminal or disciplinary actions were necessary against any officers involved, and these decisions were challenged by the Claimants citing breaches of the procedural duties under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.

The core legal principles explored in this case pertain to the procedural obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR:

  1. Article 2 - Right to Life: It mandates a stringent test of necessity and proportionality when using force that results in deprivation of life. The use of lethal force must be no more than absolutely necessary for a legitimate aim. Mr Justice Ritchie established that Article 2 applies not only to cases resulting in death but also where force used by state agents is potentially lethal, as in the present matter where severe brain damage was inflicted.

  2. Article 3 - Prohibition of Torture and Inhumane Treatment: It prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, emphasizing the need for official investigations in cases of credible assertions of ill-treatment at the hands of the authorities.

  3. Effective Participation and Public Scrutiny: This principle requires the family of the victim to participate effectively in the investigative process, which necessitates disclosing sufficient information and evidence gathered during the investigation.

  4. Independence and Adequacy of Investigation: The investigative body must act with practical independence and take reasonable steps to secure evidence, allowing for a determination of whether the use of force was justified.

The judgment emphasized that the procedural requirements under Articles 2 and 3 depend on the case context and specifics, stressing that case law should not extract rigid rules against disclosure applicable to all IOPC investigations.

Outcomes

The High Court found that the investigation and the report of the IOPC failed to satisfy the procedural requirements under Article 2 and, by agreement, under Article 3 of the ECHR. Consequently, the Court quashed the IOPC’s decisions and its final report. Mr Justice Ritchie highlighted that the IOPC must provide the claimants with substantial evidence from the investigation to enable effective participation. Furthermore, the Court noted the inadequacies in the IOPC’s lack of guidance regarding its duties under the ECHR, suggesting prompt rectification to benefit investigators and the public.

Conclusion

The Court’s ruling in Eileen Dunne & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Independent Office for Police Conduct clarifies and reinforces the procedural framework under the ECHR that must underpin IOPC investigations, particularly in matters involving use of potentially lethal force by police. It underscores the significance of effective family participation, accessibility to evidence, and independence and adequacy in investigations where state officers are involved. The judgment sets a precedent for future investigations, ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and adherence to human rights standards.