High Court Upholds Discretion of Independent Investigator in MN vs Secretary of State for Justice Case Under Article 2 ECHR

Citation: [2024] EWHC 333 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of MN, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice, the High Court of Justice in the King’s Bench Division took on the task of evaluating the requirements under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) pertaining to an independent investigation of a near-fatal suicide attempt by a prisoner. Central to the case was the necessity and extent of public scrutiny, involvement of next-of-kin, and the independence of the investigation. This analysis will break down the case summary provided to elucidate the legal principles employed and the key points of contention.

Key Facts

The claimant, referred to as MN, was a prisoner at HMP Hewell who suffered life-altering injuries from a near-fatal suicide attempt on 10 June 2022. The crux of the claim lies in challenging the decision not to mandate public hearings with compulsion powers from the start of the independent investigation initiated in response to the incident. The court evaluated whether it was appropriate to wait for the independent investigator to recommend the scope of the inquiry or if a “D style investigation” should have been ordered from the outset, given the severity of the case.

Key legal principles from the case center on Article 2 ECHR, which demands an independent state-initiated investigation that is prompt, effective, sufficiently public, and participatory for next-of-kin. The case drew on precedent from previous rulings, including the following:

  1. R (on the application of Amin) v SSHD [2004] 1 AC 653: Established the requirement for an investigation to be effective, prompt, and to involve the next of kin.

  2. R (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 3 All ER 946: The court highlighted the need for public scrutiny in investigations, especially where there are conflicts of evidence or systemic failures, but did not prescribe an explicit standard for all cases.

  3. R (on the application of JL) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 AC 588: The House of Lords provided guidance on the scope of Article 2 investigations, emphasizing the independence of the investigator’s judgment and the non-prescriptive nature of when a public inquiry is necessary.

  4. R (Mousa) v SSHD [2013] EWHC 2941 (Admin) and R (MA) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 1523 (Admin): These cases were cited by the claimant to exemplify cases with ordered public hearings to satisfy Articles 2 and 3 ECHR, which the court found distinguishable and thus not directly applicable to the instant case.

Outcomes

The High Court refused permission to apply for judicial review based on the following determinations:

  1. Severity of the Case: The court decided that the allegations, while severe, did not reach a level of severity to necessitate immediate public hearings; the independent investigator should assess this.

  2. Sufficiency of Public Scrutiny: The court found that the decision to have public hearings should lie within the independent investigator’s discretion, informed by their assessment of the case facts.

  3. Participation of Next-of-Kin: The court held that family involvement in evidence gathering is not a stringent Article 2 requirement but is specific to case circumstances.

  4. Effectiveness of the Investigation: There was no evidence suggesting witnesses wouldn’t cooperate. The court decided that powers of compulsion need not be granted at this stage.

  5. Fettering Discretion: It was concluded that the independent investigator’s discretion was not unlawfully fettered, as recommendations for public hearings would likely be followed by the Secretary of State.

  6. Compliance with Article 2 ECHR: The court emphasized that compliance review by the judiciary does not preempt the discreet decisions of the independent investigator, following guidance from JL.

Conclusion

The High Court has reinforced the principles laid out in previous case law regarding state-initiated independent investigations for near-fatal suicide attempts in custody. This decision underscores the independent investigator’s role in determining the scope of inquiry, including the extent of public hearings based on an evolving understanding of case facts. The ruling reinforces judicial restraint in pre-empting the decisions of independent investigators, thereby upholding the investigative process’s flexibility and responsiveness to case-specific details under the Article 2 instructional framework.