CASE OF HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 6;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The facts of the case, in particular concerning what happened when Pearse Jordan was shot on 25 November 1992, are in dispute between the parties.

On 25 November 1992, the applicant’s son, Pearse Jordan, aged 22, was shot and killed in Belfast by an officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the RUC), later identified as Sergeant A.

The official statement issued by the RUC to the media indicated that an RUC unit had pursued a car on the Falls Road and brought it to a halt. On stopping the car, the officers had fired several shots at the driver, fatally wounding him a short distance from where his car had been abandoned. No guns, ammunition, explosives, masks or gloves had been found in the car and the driver, Pearse Jordan, had been unarmed.

The post mortem report found two entry wounds in Pearse Jordan’s back and one in the back of the left arm, and noted a bruise on the face and shin. It concluded that he had been struck by three bullets which had come from behind and to the left. There was nothing to indicate the range.

The shooting was witnessed by four civilians, who on 26 November 1992 made statements to the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ), an independent non-governmental human rights organisation based in Belfast. The four witnesses gave the following account of the shooting, which is not accepted by the Government.

The four civilians were walking together along the Falls Road and passed Andersontown RUC station at 5 p.m. approximately. They noticed two unmarked police cars parked with their headlights dimmed, each containing three RUC officers: one car was red and the second dark blue/green.

As they proceeded along the road, they heard a crash behind them and turned to see on the opposite side of the road the red police car pulling alongside a car (Pearse Jordan’s) and ramming it up onto the footpath. The red police car came to a halt in front of the car while the dark blue/green police car pulled up behind hitting it in the rear. The four civilians stopped and had an unobstructed view across the road. Pearse Jordan emerged from the immobilised car, and appeared shaken. He staggered across the road towards the four men followed by four police officers. As Pearse Jordan reached the white line in the centre of the road, an officer about 12 feet away fired a number of shots. The civilians heard no warning shout or challenge given by any of the officers and saw nothing in Pearse Jordan’s hands or anything threatening in his actions. Some of the shots struck Pearse Jordan. He staggered a little further then turned to face the police who, when they caught up with him, verbally abused him and pushed his face into the ground where he was kicked and searched. The police carried out a search of the car.

The four witnesses followed the ambulance which took Pearse Jordan to hospital where they stated that they were subjected to hostile and threatening remarks by members of the security forces.

According to the applicant, prior to the release of the official RUC statement (see paragraph 13 above), there were a number of unofficial reports widely circulated in the media to the effect that gloves, masks, guns and bombs had been found in the car, and one report to the effect that Pearse Jordan was a former Republican prisoner who had been charged in 1991 with possession of explosives. This information was not correct. Pearse Jordan did however receive an IRA funeral and, in the Republican News, he was described as a Volunteer of the Belfast Brigade of the IRA and it was said that he had died on active service.

An official RUC statement stated that a deputy superintendent of the RUC from outside Belfast would investigate the shooting. In a later statement, it was announced that the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (the ICPC) would supervise the RUC investigation.

On 26 November 1992, at 10.55 p.m., a detective chief inspector of the RUC criminal investigation department interviewed Sergeant A, in the presence of his solicitor and a representative of the ICPC. Sergeant A, member of an HMSU unit, stated as follows.

He had been at a briefing at 11 a.m. the day before concerning reports of a planned distribution of kit and munitions, including weapons, explosives and mortars, by the Provisional IRA in West Belfast. A surveillance operation was to be mounted and he was in charge of the teams on the ground which were going to intervene if possible to intercept the munitions. He was carrying a Smith and Wesson 59 pistol and a MP5 Heckler & Koch. At about 3.20-3.30 p.m., following reports of a car acting suspiciously at White Rock leisure centre, he and his teams left Woodbourne police station to wait at Andersontown police station. They heard reports there of a build up of activity at the back of two houses in Arizona street, which were under surveillance. The red car from the leisure centre arrived in Arizona street. Sergeant A thought that this was possibly the re-supply of terrorist equipment taking place. He was told by radio to gather his people together – car crews with call signs 8, 9, 3 and 12. When the red Orion left Arizona street, he and his crews left the police station but were called back almost immediately to allow the red Orion to make its run. A red Cavalier left Arizona street and they were told to allow that to run. News arrived that the red Orion had come back to Arizona street. Sergeant A was told on the radio that the next time the red Orion came out they were to intercept it. He split his crews in two, his own team (call signs 8 and 12) to approach from the city side and the crews with call signs 3 and 9 to approach from the country side.

When the red Orion came past the two police cars, Sergeant A saw that there was one driver. They pulled out behind it. His driver flashed his lights at it. They switched on their police klaxon but had no blue flashing light on the car and none of them were wearing their police caps. Sergeant A’s car drew level with the Orion and he signalled for it to pull over. The Orion slowed falling behind and then shot past on the passenger side, accelerating down the Falls Road in the direction of the city. Sergeant A told his driver to pursue him and force him off the road. The car possibly reached the speed of 60, maybe 70 miles per hour at the fastest. They were in a built up area, in traffic so it was difficult to judge. Their klaxon was going throughout. They drew parallel with the red Orion and nudged it once. The impact was hard enough to force the Orion partly up on the pavement and stop it. Sergeant A’s own car stopped partly on the pavement in front of the Orion. The lock of his door had broken on the impact. He burst out of the door onto the pavement moving towards the Orion. He saw the driver running across the road from left to right at an angle away from him. He was looking over his right shoulder in Sergeant A’s direction as he ran. Sergeant A said that he called out “Police. Halt.” or “Halt. Police.”

The driver of the Orion turned around towards him. He could not see the man’s hands which were below his waist. His vision was either obscured by the roof of the police car in front of him or the arrival of the other black car (crew 12) on the scene. As he could not see the man’s hands, he thought that his own life or the life of his own driver might be at risk. He feared the man was armed as he had spun round so quickly. He fired a short burst from his MP5 at the trunk of the man. When he made the split second decision to fire, the man was facing him but he could not say whether he had turned or moved in some other way. He was aware of other police officers shouting. He ran towards the driver who ran towards the footpath on the far side of the road. Constable F was shouting at him to get down on his knees. The driver fell flat, toppling over. It was realised at that stage that he was seriously injured.

Sergeant A quickly searched the car, while other security force personnel administered first aid to the driver. Either base, or he himself, suggested that the police officers move to Arizona street. The military took over the first aid. He had directed most of the police officers to leave the scene as soon as they had arrived, including crew 12 in their car. He did not know that car 12 had come into contact with the Orion or the deceased. He arrived back at the station at about 5.30 to 6.00 p.m. There was a 20-30 minute debriefing in which he participated. He also discussed the matter casually with the others who were there. He was instructed to hand in his weapon at about that time.

On 30 March 1993, a detective inspector carried out a second interview of Sergeant A, in the presence of his solicitor. Further questions were put about his position and actions at the time of the shooting. He recalled that he had had a clear view of the deceased from the waist up. When the deceased turned to face him, he did not make any movements towards him. His arms remained down though. When asked to explain precisely why he had considered that his life was in danger, given that he could not confirm that the deceased was armed, Sergeant A replied that it had been a prolonged operation lasting several hours involving serious terrorist activity. The red Orion had reacted in a very aggressive manner in driving at excessive speed on a busy road. When the Orion was stopped, the driver ran away and when he was ordered to stop, he turned towards the Sergeant in what the Sergeant interpreted as an aggressive manner. His arms were down and his hands out of sight. In that short space of time, he formed the opinion that the deceased was a threat to his life. The man’s actions had not been of someone about to surrender. He was certain that there were no viable alternatives to discharging his own weapon.

Forensic examinations of the cars involved in the incident were carried out. Interviews were conducted with the other police officers and army personnel involved in the incident.

According to the statements of police officers D, E and F in the car call sign 12, they had been pursuing the red Orion car close behind the red police Sierra in which Sergeant A was driving. When the Orion stopped, their car pulled up behind. As they were stopping, the driver was running from the car and either he ran into them or their car struck him, clipping him on the right thigh. The driver span round towards call sign 8. At that point, there was a short burst of gunfire. Their car had also at some point made contact with the red Orion in the rear. Only officer D heard shouting coming from the call sign 8 direction before the shooting. Shortly after moving their car to facilitate the flow of traffic, they had been directed to Arizona street.

In his statement of 6 December 1992, Sergeant H, from the car call sign 11, stated that on arrival at the scene he had instructed car 12 to be moved to facilitate the movement of a bus which had stopped very close to the injured man. He was not aware that car 12 might have struck the red Orion car or the deceased. The car was only moved back slightly and he was not involved in directing its complete removal from the scene.

Inspector M gave a statement on 7 December 1992 that, on being satisfied that the injured man was receiving first aid and that the red Orion had been secured, he gave directions for all the HMSU police teams to go to Arizona street for searches. Some sort of device has been located there.

During the investigation, appeals were made by the police in newspapers and broadcast media for potential eyewitnesses to come forward. A number of civilians made statements to the police and subsequently gave evidence at the inquest. In May 1993, the RUC concluded its inquiry. Its report on the investigation was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) on 25 May 1993.

On 3 June 1993, the ICPC wrote to the applicant’s family expressing the view that the RUC report of 25 May 1993 concerning the criminal investigation into the shooting was satisfactory. On 15 June 1993, the RUC wrote to the applicant advising him that the papers had been sent to the DPP. The applicant and his family were not however provided with any indication as to the nature of the RUC’s findings.

On 16 November 1993, the DPP’s department issued to the Chief Constable of the RUC a direction of “no prosecution” in respect of the fatal shooting of Pearse Jordan. It had been concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the prosecution of any person.

On 22 November 1993, having considered a submission by the CAJ, the DPP notified the CAJ that the direction of “no prosecution” should stand.

On 11 February 1994, the RUC Complaints and Discipline Department wrote to the applicant to inform him that the report on the shooting had been sent to the ICPC.

On 31 August 1994, the ICPC wrote to the applicant to inform him that after careful scrutiny of all the details it was of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the preferment of disciplinary charges against the police officers concerned.

On 29 November 1993, the RUC notified the Coroner that the DPP had directed “no prosecution”. Following that decision, the Coroner decided to hold an inquest.

On 4 November 1994, the Coroner received the case papers from the RUC.

On or about 13 November 1994, the Coroner wrote to interested parties informing them that the inquest would begin on 4 January 1995.

Prior to the commencement of the inquest, the Secretary of State for Defence issued a certificate in which he identified information whose disclosure at the inquest he believed would be contrary to the public interest on grounds of national security, and made an application that the identities of certain military witnesses be withheld and that they should give their evidence from behind a screen.

On 20 December 1994, the Coroner held a preliminary hearing at which he decided to:

(a) protect certain categories of information from disclosure on the grounds of national security;

(b) protect the identity of three military witnesses, Soldiers V, W and X by withholding their names and screening them from all except the Coroner, the jury and the legal representatives of the interested parties; and

(c) protect the identity of certain RUC officers, including Sergeant A (the officer who fired the shots which killed Pearse Jordan) by withholding their names.

On 2 January 1995, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued a certificate in which he identified information whose disclosure at the inquest he believed would be contrary to the public interest as compromising the integrity of RUC intelligence operations.

On 4 January 1995, the Coroner’s inquest commenced. The applicant and his family were represented by a solicitor and counsel. The RUC were represented. The Coroner sat for three and a half days, hearing evidence from 19 witnesses, including the applicant, 8 civilians, Soldiers V, W and X, 7 police officers and a pathologist. These witnesses were subject to cross-examination. Sergeant A had informed the Coroner that he would not appear.

On or about 8 January 1995, the CAJ provided the Coroner with a statement which they had received from another civilian witness, a driver of a black taxi who had been at the scene.

On 10 January 1995, the Coroner rejected the request by the applicant’s counsel to withdraw the protection of the identities of the RUC witnesses.

The proceedings were adjourned on 16 January 1995, at the request of Pearse Jordan’s family, to enable the DPP, in the light of new evidence from the taxi driver, to reconsider the decision whether or not to bring a prosecution. The Coroner wrote to the DPP informing him that new evidence had come to light which should be considered.

On 10 February 1995, the DPP decided that the evidence remained insufficient to warrant the prosecution of any person in relation to Pearse Jordan’s death. He requested that any further evidence adduced at the inquest relevant to his functions be reported to him.

On 14 February 1995, the applicant’s legal representatives were informed by the DPP that his decision not to bring a prosecution still stood.

On 10 March 1995, the applicant’s legal representatives made an application for the Coroner to discharge himself from the Inquest on the grounds that he was not conducting the inquest fairly. The Coroner refused the application.

On 11 April 1995, the Coroner wrote to the interested parties informing them that the inquest would resume on 12 June 1995.

On 26 May 1995, the applicant’s legal representatives commenced judicial review proceedings seeking declarations that certain rulings given by the Coroner in the course of the inquest were wrong in law. Leave was granted on 2 June 1995. The applicant sought orders of certiorari to quash inter alia (a) the Coroner’s refusal to give the next of kin access to the statements of the witnesses before they gave evidence at the inquest and (b) the decision of the Coroner to grant anonymity to RUC witnesses. Legal aid was granted to the applicant for this purpose. The Coroner adjourned the inquest pending these proceedings.

Leave was granted to bring judicial review proceedings against the Coroner on 2 June 1995.

The judicial review application was heard on 9 and 10 November 1995. By judgment of 11 December 1995, Lord Justice Carswell refused the applicant’s claims. In doing so he had regard to the inquisitorial nature of inquest proceedings. He referred to the remarks of Griffiths J in Ex parte Peach:

“A coroner’s inquest is an inquisitorial procedure with a very limited objective indeed. The objective is set out in rule 26 of the Coroners Rules 1953. It is limited to ascertaining the following matters: who the deceased was; how, when and where the deceased came by his death. There is a further specific limitation provided by the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 1977. These provide by rule 7 that no verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person or of civil liability.

It is quite true that the coroner may allow interested parties to examine a witness called by the coroner. But that must be for the purpose of assisting in establishing the matters which the inquest is directed to determine. It is not intended by rule 16 to widen the coroner’s inquest into adversarial fields of conflict.”

Lord Justice Carswell also referred to the statutory background governing the procedure at inquest: Section 31(1) of the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 providing that the jury shall give their verdict in the form prescribed by rules,

“setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased person was and how, when and where he came to his death.”

and Rule 16 of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules 1963 providing:

“neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on questions of criminal or civil liability ...”

On 8 January 1996, the applicant appealed against the decision of Lord Justice Carswell. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland on 28 June 1996. The applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 4 October 1996. The House of Lords also refused leave on 20 March 1997.

The inquest was due to recommence on 1 December 1997. However, it was adjourned on 19 November 1997 by the Coroner, after consultation with the parties, pending the outcome of a judicial review application in the High Court concerning the availability of legal aid for legal representation for the family of the deceased at inquests.

On 16 March 1999, final judgment was given in the case of Sharon Lavery v. the Secretary of State and the Legal Aid Department, in which a challenge concerning the unavailability of legal aid for inquests was dismissed.

On 1 July 1999, the Coroner informed the interested parties that he intended to resume the inquest on 1 November 1999.

On 13 October 1999, the Coroner adjourned the inquest pending the applicant’s application for the disclosure of documents by the Chief Constable of the RUC in the wake of the Home Office Circular issued on 28 April 1999 on deaths in police custody which recommended, inter alia, that material supplied by the police to the Coroner should be made available to the families of deceased persons (see paragraphs 73 and 74 below).

On 2 February 2000, the applicant was informed that the Chief Constable would provide copies of the statements of the witnesses who were to appear at the inquest and copies of any statements which the Coroner proposed to read out.

On 3 March 2000, the applicant was granted leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the Chief Constable, challenging his decision not to provide further documents to the applicant.

When the inquest resumed, the Coroner proposed to call, in addition to the witnesses who gave evidence in January 1995, 12 police officers and Soldier Y involved in the anti-terrorist operation in which Pearse Jordan died, forensic experts and three police officers involved in the RUC investigation into the shooting.

On a date unspecified between 4 April and 2 October 2000, the applicant was provided with the witness statements of persons whom the Coroner has decided should be called to give evidence at the inquest.

The applicant was granted legal aid to pursue a civil action for compensation in the High Court. On 7 December 1992, the applicant instituted civil proceedings, alleging death by wrongful act.

On 5 October 1995, the applicant served a statement of claim in the civil proceedings. On 24 October 1995 the Ministry of Defence served their defence, together with a request for further and better particulars of the statement of claim. The applicant did not reply to this request until a date unspecified subsequent to 27 August 1998.

On 8 October 1999, the Crown Solicitor wrote to the applicant seeking consent to a remittal of the civil action to trial.

The applicant stated that the case is currently at the discovery stage but that this cannot be concluded until the inquest is terminated.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 provides inter alia:

“1. A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting the arrest or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large.”

Self-defence or the defence of others is contained within the concept of the prevention of crime (see e.g. Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law).

The conduct of inquests in Northern Ireland is governed by the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1963. These provide the framework for a procedure within which deaths by violence or in suspicious circumstances are notified to the Coroner, who then has the power to hold an inquest, with or without a jury, for the purpose of ascertaining, with the assistance as appropriate of the evidence of witnesses and reports, inter alia, of post mortem and forensic examinations, who the deceased was and how, when and where he died.

Pursuant to the Coroners Act, every medical practitioner, registrar of deaths or funeral undertaker who has reason to believe a person died directly or indirectly by violence is under an obligation to inform the Coroner (section 7). Every medical practitioner who performs a post mortem examination has to notify the Coroner of the result in writing (section 29). Whenever a dead body is found, or an unexplained death or death in suspicious circumstances occurs, the police of that district are required to give notice to the Coroner (section 8).

Rules 12 and 13 of the Coroners Rules give power to the Coroner to adjourn an inquest where a person may be or has been charged with murder or other specified criminal offences in relation to the deceased.

Where the Coroner decides to hold an inquest with a jury, persons are called from the Jury List, compiled by random computer selection from the electoral register for the district on the same basis as in criminal trials.

The matters in issue at an inquest are governed by Rules 15 and 16 of the Coroners Rules:

“15. The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters, namely: -

(a) who the deceased was;

(b) how, when and where the deceased came by his death;

(c) the particulars for the time being required by the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 to be registered concerning his death.

Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on questions of criminal or civil liability or on any matters other than those referred to in the last foregoing Rule.”

The forms of verdict used in Northern Ireland accord with this recommendation, recording the name and other particulars of the deceased, a statement of the cause of death (e.g. bullet wounds) and findings as to when and where the deceased met his death. In England and Wales, the form of verdict appended to the English Coroners Rules contains a section marked “conclusions of the jury/coroner as to the death” in which conclusions such as “lawfully killed” or “killed unlawfully” are inserted. These findings involve expressing an opinion on criminal liability in that they involve a finding as to whether the death resulted from a criminal act, but no finding is made that any identified person was criminally liable. The jury in England and Wales may also append recommendations to their verdict.

However, in Northern Ireland, the Coroner is under a duty (section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Order (Northern Ireland) 1972) to furnish a written report to the DPP where the circumstances of any death appear to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed.

Until recently, legal aid was not available for inquests as they did not involve the determination of civil liabilities or criminal charges. Legislation which would have provided for legal aid at the hearing of inquests (the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, Schedule 1 paragraph 5) has not been brought into force. However, on 25 July 2000, the Lord Chancellor announced the establishment of an Extra-Statutory Ex Gratia Scheme to make public funding available for representation for proceedings before Coroners in exceptional inquests in Northern Ireland. In March 2001, he published for consultation the criteria to be used in deciding whether applications for representation at inquests should receive public funding. This included inter alia consideration of financial eligibility, whether an effective investigation by the State was needed and whether the inquest was the only way to conduct it, whether the applicant required representation to be able to participate effectively in the inquest and whether the applicant had a sufficiently close relationship to the deceased.

The Coroner enjoys the power to summon witnesses who he thinks it necessary to attend the inquest (section 17 of the Coroners Act) and he may allow any interested person to examine a witness (Rule 7). In both England and Wales and Northern Ireland, a witness is entitled to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination. In Northern Ireland, this privilege is reinforced by Rule 9(2) which provides that a person suspected of causing the death may not be compelled to give evidence at the inquest.

In relation to both documentary evidence and the oral evidence of witnesses, inquests, like criminal trials, are subject to the law of public interest immunity, which recognises and gives effect to the public interest, such as national security, in the non-disclosure of certain information or certain documents or classes of document. A claim of public interest immunity must be supported by a certificate.

Rules 15 and 16 (see above) follow from the recommendation of the Brodrick Committee on Death Certification and Coroners:

“... the function of an inquest should be simply to seek out and record as many of the facts concerning the death as the public interest requires, without deducing from those facts any determination of blame... In many cases, perhaps the majority, the facts themselves will demonstrate quite clearly whether anyone bears any responsibility for the death; there is a difference between a form of proceeding which affords to others the opportunity to judge an issue and one which appears to judge the issue itself.”

Domestic courts have made, inter alia, the following comments:

“... It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died, which might raise general and far-reaching issues, but ‘how...the deceased came by his death’, a far more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death.

... [previous judgments] make it clear that when the Brodrick Committee stated that one of the purposes of an inquest is ‘To allay rumours or suspicions’ this purpose should be confined to allaying rumours and suspicions of how the deceased came by his death and not to allaying rumours or suspicions about the broad circumstances in which the deceased came by his death.” (Sir Thomas Bingham, MR, Court of Appeal, R. v the Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex parte Roy Jamieson, April 1994, unreported)

“The cases establish that although the word ‘how’ is to be widely interpreted, it means ‘by what means’ rather than in what broad circumstances ... In short, the inquiry must focus on matters directly causative of death and must, indeed, be confined to those matters alone ...” (Simon Brown LJ, Court of Appeal, R. v. Coroner for Western District of East Sussex, ex parte Homberg and others, (1994) 158 JP 357)

“... it should not be forgotten that an inquest is a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt. The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for one are unsuitable for the other. In an inquest it should never be forgotten that there are no parties, no indictment, there is no prosecution, there is no defence, there is no trial, simply an attempt to establish the facts. It is an inquisitorial process, a process of investigation quite unlike a trial...

It is well recognised that a purpose of an inquest is that rumour may be allayed. But that does not mean it is the duty of the Coroner to investigate at an inquest every rumour or allegation that may be brought to his attention. It is ... his duty to discharge his statutory role - the scope of his enquiry must not be allowed to drift into the uncharted seas of rumour and allegation. He will proceed safely and properly if he investigates the facts which it appears are relevant to the statutory issues before him.” (Lord Lane, Court of Appeal, R v. South London Coroner ex parte Thompson (1982) 126 SJ 625)

There was no requirement prior to 1999 for the families at inquests to receive copies of the written statements or documents submitted to the Coroner during the inquest. Coroners generally adopted the practice of disclosing the statements or documents during the inquest proceedings, as the relevant witness came forward to give evidence.

Following the recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Home Office Circular No. 20/99 (concerning deaths in custody or deaths resulting from the actions of a police officer in purported execution of his duty) advised Chief Constables of police forces in England and Wales to make arrangements in such cases for the pre-inquest disclosure of documentary evidence to interested parties. This was to “help provide reassurance to the family of the deceased and other interested persons that a full and open police investigation has been conducted, and that they and their legal representatives will not be disadvantaged at the inquest”. Such disclosure was recommended to take place 28 days before the inquest.

Paragraph 7 of the Circular stated:

“The courts have established that statements taken by the police and other documentary material produced by the police during the investigation of a death in police custody are the property of the force commissioning the investigation. The Coroner has no power to order the pre-inquest disclosure of such material... Disclosure will therefore be on a voluntary basis.”

Paragraph 9 listed some kinds of material which require particular consideration before being disclosed, for example:

– where disclosure of documents might have a prejudicial effect on possible subsequent proceedings (criminal, civil or disciplinary);

– where the material concerns sensitive or personal information about the deceased or unsubstantiated allegations which might cause distress to the family; and

– personal information about third parties not material to the inquest.

Paragraph 11 envisaged that there would be non-disclosure of the investigating officer’s report although it might be possible to disclose it in those cases which the Chief Constable considered appropriate.

The police complaints procedure was governed at the relevant time by the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (the 1987 Order). This replaced the Police Complaints Board, which had been set up in 1977, by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (the ICPC). The ICPC has been replaced from 1 October 2000 with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland appointed under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

The ICPC was an independent body, consisting of a chairman, two deputy chairmen and at least four other members. Where a complaint against the police was being investigated by a police officer or where the Chief Constable or Secretary of State considered that a criminal offence might have been committed by a police officer, the case was referred to the ICPC.

The ICPC was required under Article 9(1)(a) of the 1987 Order to supervise the investigation of any complaint alleging that the conduct of a RUC officer had resulted in death or serious injury. Its approval was required of the appointment of the police officer to conduct the investigation and it could require the investigating officer to be replaced (Article 9(5)(b)). A report by the investigating officer was submitted to the ICPC concerning supervised investigations at the same time as to the Chief Constable. Pursuant to Article 9(8) of the 1987 Order, the ICPC issued a statement whether the investigation had been conducted to its satisfaction and, if not, specifying any respect in which it had not been so conducted.

The Chief Constable was required under Article 10 of the 1987 Order to determine whether the report indicated that a criminal offence had been committed by a member of the police force. If he so decided and considered that the officer ought to be charged, he was required to send a copy of the report to the DPP. If the DPP decided not to prefer criminal charges, the Chief Constable was required to send a memorandum to the ICPC indicating whether he intended to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer (Article 10(5)) save where disciplinary proceedings had been brought and the police officer had admitted the charges (Article 11(1)). Where the Chief Constable considered that a criminal offence had been committed but that the offence was not such that the police officer should be charged or where he considered that no criminal offence had been committed, he was required to send a memorandum indicating whether he intended to bring disciplinary charges and, if not, his reasons for not proposing to do so (Article 11(6) and (7)).

If the ICPC considered that a police officer subject to investigation ought to be charged with a criminal offence, it could direct the Chief Constable to send the DPP a copy of the report on that investigation (Article 12(2)). It could also recommend or direct the Chief Constable to prefer such disciplinary charges as the ICPC specified (Article 13(1) and (3)).

The Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP), appointed pursuant to the Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) 1972 (the 1972 Order) is an independent officer with at least 10 years’ experience of the practice of law in Northern Ireland who is appointed by the Attorney General and who holds office until retirement, subject only to dismissal for misconduct. His duties under Article 5 of the 1972 Order are inter alia:

“(a) to consider, or cause to be considered, with a view to his initiating or continuing in Northern Ireland any criminal proceedings or the bringing of any appeal or other proceedings in or in connection with any criminal cause or matter in Northern Ireland, any facts or information brought to his notice, whether by the Chief Constable acting in pursuance of Article 6(3) of this Order or by the Attorney General or by any other authority or person;

(b) to examine or cause to be examined all documents that are required under Article 6 of this Order to be transmitted or furnished to him and where it appears to him to be necessary or appropriate to do so to cause any matter arising thereon to be further investigated;

(c) where he thinks proper to initiate, undertake and carry on, on behalf of the Crown, proceedings for indictable offences and for such summary offences or classes of summary offences as he considers should be dealt with by him.”

Article 6 of the 1972 Order requires inter alia Coroners and the Chief Constable of the RUC to provide information to the DPP as follows:

“(2) Where the circumstances of any death investigated or being investigated by a coroner appear to him to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed he shall as soon as practicable furnish to the [DPP] a written report of those circumstances.

(3) It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable, from time to time, to furnish to the [DPP] facts and information with respect to -

(a) indictable offences [such as murder] alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland; ...

and at the request of the [DPP], to ascertain and furnish to the [DPP] information regarding any matter which may appear to the [DPP] to require investigation on the ground that it may involve an offence against the law of Northern Ireland or information which may appear to the [DPP] to be necessary for the discharge of his functions under this Order.”

According to the Government’s observations submitted on 18 June 1998, it had been the practice of successive DPPs to refrain from giving reasons for decisions not to institute or proceed with criminal prosecutions other than in the most general terms. This practice was based upon the consideration that

(1) if reason were given in one or more cases, they would be required to be given in all. Otherwise, erroneous conclusions might be drawn in relation to those cases where reasons were refused, involving either unjust implications regarding the guilt of some individuals or suspicions of malpractice;

(2) the reason not to prosecute might often be the unavailability of a particular item of evidence essential to establish the case (e.g. sudden death or flight of a witness or intimidation). To indicate such a factor as the sole reason for not prosecuting might lead to assumptions of guilt in the public estimation;

(3) the publication of the reasons might cause pain or damage to persons other than the suspect (e.g. the assessment of the credibility or mental condition of the victim or other witnesses);

(4) in a substantial category of cases decisions not to prosecute were based on the DPP’s assessment of the public interest. Where the sole reason not to prosecute was the age, mental or physical health of the suspect, publication would not be appropriate and could lead to unjust implications;

(5) there might be considerations of national security which affected the safety of individuals (e.g. where no prosecution could safely or fairly be brought without disclosing information which would be of assistance to terrorist organisations, would impair the effectiveness of the counter-terrorist operations of the security forces or endanger the lives of such personnel and their families or informants).

Decisions of the DPP not to prosecute have been subject to applications for judicial review in the High Court.

In R v. DPP ex parte C (1995) 1 CAR, p. 141, Lord Justice Kennedy held, concerning a decision of the DPP not to prosecute in an alleged case of buggery:

“From all of those decisions it seems to me that in the context of the present case this court can be persuaded to act if and only if it is demonstrated to us that the Director of Public Prosecutions acting through the Crown Prosecution Service arrived at the decision not to prosecute:

(1) because of some unlawful policy (such as the hypothetical decision in Blackburn not to prosecute where the value of goods stolen was below £100);

(2) because the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to act in accordance with his own settled policy as set out in the code; or

(3) because the decision was perverse. It was a decision at which no reasonable prosecutor could have arrived.”

In the case of R v. the DPP and Others ex parte Timothy Jones the Divisional Court on 22 March 2000 quashed a decision not to prosecute for alleged gross negligence causing a death in dock unloading on the basis that the reasons given by the DPP – that the evidence was not sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of satisfying a jury – required further explanation.

R v. DPP ex parte Patricia Manning and Elizabeth Manning (decision of the Divisional Court of 17 May 2000) concerned the DPP’s decision not to prosecute any prison officer for manslaughter in respect of the death of a prisoner, although the inquest jury had reached a verdict of unlawful death - there was evidence that prison officers had used a neck lock which was forbidden and dangerous. The DPP reviewing the case still concluded that the Crown would be unable to establish manslaughter from gross negligence. The Lord Chief Justice noted:

“Authority makes clear that a decision by the Director not to prosecute is susceptible to judicial review: see, for example, R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte C [1995] 1 Cr. App. R. 136. But, as the decided cases also make clear, the power of review is one to be sparingly exercised. The reasons for this are clear. The primary decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is entrusted by Parliament to the Director as head of an independent, professional prosecuting service, answerable to the Attorney General in his role as guardian of the public interest, and to no-one else. It makes no difference that in practice the decision will ordinarily be taken by a senior member of the CPS, as it was here, and not by the Director personally. In any borderline case the decision may be one of acute difficulty, since while a defendant whom a jury would be likely to convict should properly be brought to justice and tried, a defendant whom a jury would be likely to acquit should not be subjected to the trauma inherent in a criminal trial. If, in a case such as the present, the Director’s provisional decision is not to prosecute, that decision will be subject to review by Senior Treasury Counsel who will exercise an independent professional judgment. The Director and his officials (and Senior Treasury Counsel when consulted) will bring to their task of deciding whether to prosecute an experience and expertise which most courts called upon to review their decisions could not match. In most cases the decision will turn not on an analysis of the relevant legal principles but on the exercise of an informed judgment of how a case against a particular defendant, if brought, would be likely to fare in the context of a criminal trial before (in a serious case such as this) a jury. This exercise of judgment involves an assessment of the strength, by the end of the trial, of the evidence against the defendant and of the likely defences. It will often be impossible to stigmatise a judgment on such matters as wrong even if one disagrees with it. So the courts will not easily find that a decision not to prosecute is bad in law, on which basis alone the court is entitled to interfere. At the same time, the standard of review should not be set too high, since judicial review is the only means by which the citizen can seek redress against a decision not to prosecute and if the test were too exacting an effective remedy would be denied.”

As regards whether the DPP had a duty to give reasons, the Lord Chief Justice said:

“It is not contended that the Director is subject to an obligation to give reasons in every case in which he decides not to prosecute. Even in the small and very narrowly defined cases which meet Mr Blake’s conditions set out above, we do not understand domestic law or the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to impose an absolute and unqualified obligation to give reasons for a decision not to prosecute. But the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights. It is put at the forefront of the Convention. The power to derogate from it is very limited. The death of a person in the custody of the State must always arouse concern, as recognised by section 8(1)(c), (3)(b) and (6) of the Coroner’s Act 1988, and if the death resulted from violence inflicted by agents of the State that concern must be profound. The holding of an inquest in public by an independent judicial official, the coroner, in which interested parties are able to participate must in our view be regarded as a full and effective inquiry (see McCann v. United Kingdom [1996] 21 EHRR 97, paragraphs 159 to 164). Where such an inquest following a proper direction to the jury culminates in a lawful verdict of unlawful killing implicating a person who, although not named in the verdict, is clearly identified, who is living and whose whereabouts are known, the ordinary expectation would naturally be that a prosecution would follow. In the absence of compelling grounds for not giving reasons, we would expect the Director to give reasons in such a case: to meet the reasonable expectation of interested parties that either a prosecution would follow or a reasonable explanation for not prosecuting be given, to vindicate the Director’s decision by showing that solid grounds exist for what might otherwise appear to be a surprising or even inexplicable decision and to meet the European Court’s expectation that if a prosecution is not to follow a plausible explanation will be given. We would be very surprised if such a general practice were not welcome to Members of Parliament whose constituents have died in such circumstances. We readily accept that such reasons would have to be drawn with care and skill so as to respect third party and public interests and avoid undue prejudice to those who would have no opportunity to defend themselves. We also accept that time and skill would be needed to prepare a summary which was reasonably brief but did not distort the true basis of the decision. But the number of cases which meet Mr Blake’s conditions is very small (we were told that since 1981, including deaths in police custody, there have been seven such cases), and the time and expense involved could scarcely be greater than that involved in resisting an application for judicial review. In any event it would seem to be wrong in principle to require the citizen to make a complaint of unlawfulness against the Director in order to obtain a response which good administrative practice would in the ordinary course require.”

On this basis, the court reviewed whether the reasons given by the DPP in that case were in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors and capable of supporting a decision not to prosecute. It found that the decision had failed to take relevant matters into account and that this vitiated the decision not to prosecute. The decision was quashed and the DPP was required to reconsider his decision whether or not to prosecute.

In the Matter of an Application by David Adams for Judicial Review, the High Court in Northern Ireland on 7 June 2000 considered the applicant’s claim that the DPP had failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons for his decision not to prosecute any police officer concerned in the arrest during which he had suffered serious injuries and for which in civil proceedings he had obtained an award of damages against the police. It noted that there was no statutory obligation on the DPP under the 1972 Order to give reasons and considered that no duty to give reasons could be implied. The fact that the DPP in England and Wales had in a number of cases furnished detailed reasons, whether from increasing concern for transparency or in the interests of the victim’s families, was a matter for his discretion. It concluded on the basis of authorities that only in exceptional cases such as the Manning case (paragraph 85 above) would the DPP be required to furnish reasons to a victim for failing to prosecute and that review should be limited to where the principles identified by Lord Justice Kennedy (paragraph 83 above) were infringed. Notwithstanding the findings in the civil case, they were not persuaded that the DPP had acted in such an aberrant, inexplicable or irrational manner that the case cried out for reasons to be furnished as to why he had so acted.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (UN Force and Firearms Principles) were adopted on 7 September 1990 by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.

Paragraph 9 of the UN Force and Firearms Principles provides, inter alia, that the “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”.

Other relevant provisions read as follows:

Paragraph 10

“... law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warnings to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.”

Paragraph 22

“... Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that an effective review process is available and that independent administrative or prosecutorial authorities are in a position to exercise jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances. In cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences, a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the competent authorities responsible for administrative review and judicial control.”

Paragraph 23

“Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to an independent process, including a judicial process. In the event of the death of such persons, this provision shall apply to their dependants accordingly.”

Paragraph 9 of the United Nations Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted on 24 May 1989 by the Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65, (UN Principles on Extra-Legal Executions) provides, inter alia, that:

“There shall be a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra legal, arbitrary and summary executions, including cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances ...”

Paragraphs 10 to 17 of the UN Principles on Extra-Legal Executions contain a series of detailed requirements that should be observed by investigative procedures into such deaths.

Paragraph 10 states, inter alia:

“The investigative authority shall have the power to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry. Those persons conducting the inquiry ... shall also have the authority to oblige officials allegedly involved in any such executions to appear and testify ...”

Paragraph 11 specifies:

“In cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate because of a lack of expertise or impartiality, because of the importance of the matter or because of the apparent existence of a pattern of abuse, and in cases where there are complaints from the family of the victim about these inadequacies or other substantial reasons, Governments shall pursue investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure. Members of such a commission shall be chosen for their recognised impartiality, competence and independence as individuals. In particular, they shall be independent of any institution, agency or person that may be the subject of the inquiry. The commission shall have the authority to obtain all information necessary to the inquiry and shall conduct the inquiry as provided in these principles.”

Paragraph 16 provides, inter alia:

“Families of the deceased and their legal representatives shall be informed of, and have access to, any hearing as well as all information relevant to the investigation and shall be entitled to present other evidence ...”

Paragraph 17 provides, inter alia:

“A written report shall be made within a reasonable time on the methods and findings of such investigations. The report shall be made public immediately and shall include the scope of the inquiry, procedures, methods used to evaluate evidence as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law ...”

The “Minnesota Protocol” (Model Protocol for a legal investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, contained in the UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions) provides, inter alia, in section B on the “Purposes of an inquiry”:

“As set out in paragraph 9 of the Principles, the broad purpose of an inquiry is to discover the truth about the events leading to the suspicious death of a victim. To fulfil that purpose, those conducting the inquiry shall, at a minimum, seek:

(a) to identify the victim;

(b) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible;

(c) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death;

(d) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death;

(e) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide;

(f) to identify and apprehend the person(s) involved in the death;

(g) to bring the suspected perpetrator(s) before a competent court established by law.”

In section D, it is stated that “In cases where government involvement is suspected, an objective and impartial investigation may not be possible unless a special commission of inquiry is established ...”.

In the report on its visit to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man from 8 to 17 September 1999, published on 13 January 2000, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the CPT) reviewed the system of preferring criminal and disciplinary charges against police officers accused of ill-treating persons. It commented, inter alia, on the statistically few criminal prosecutions and disciplinary proceedings which were brought, and identified certain aspects of the procedures which cast doubt on their effectiveness:

The chief officers appointed officers from the same force to conduct the investigations, save in exceptional cases where they appointed an officer from another force, and the majority of investigations were unsupervised by the Police Complaints Authority.

It stated at paragraph 55:

“As already indicated, the CPT itself entertains reservations about whether the PCA [the Police Complaints Authority], even equipped with the enhanced powers which have been proposed, will be capable of persuading public opinion that complaints against the police are vigorously investigated. In the view of the CPT, the creation of a fully-fledged independent investigating agency would be a most welcome development. Such a body should certainly, like the PCA, have the power to direct that disciplinary proceedings be instigated against police officers. Further, in the interests of bolstering public confidence, it might also be thought appropriate that such a body be invested with the power to remit a case directly to the CPS for consideration of whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought.

In any event, the CPT recommends that the role of the ‘chief officer’ within the existing system be reviewed. To take the example of one Metropolitan Police officer to whom certain of the chief officer’s functions have been delegated (the Director of the CIB [Criminal Investigations Bureau]), he is currently expected to: seek dispensations from the PCA; appoint investigating police officers and assume managerial responsibility for their work; determine whether an investigating officer’s report indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed; decide whether to bring disciplinary proceedings against a police officer on the basis of an investigating officer’s report, and liase with the PCA on this question; determine which disciplinary charges should be brought against an officer who is to face charges; in civil cases, negotiate settlement strategies and authorise payments into court. It is doubtful whether it is realistic to expect any single official to be able to perform all of these functions in an entirely independent and impartial way.

...Reference should also be made to the high degree of public interest in CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] decisions regarding the prosecution of police officers (especially in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct). Confidence about the manner in which such decisions are reached would certainly be strengthened were the CPS to be obliged to give detailed reasons in cases where it was decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought. The CPT recommends that such a requirement be introduced.”


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants, Mr David Charles Orams and Mrs Linda Elizabeth Orams, are British nationals who were born in 1944 and 1946 respectively and live in East Sussex. They were represented before the Court by Mr Z. Necatigil and Ms Ş. Karabacak, lawyers practising in Nicosia, in the northern part of Cyprus.

and as derived from the documents submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants, a British couple, purchased a plot of land in 2002 in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) from a private vendor who was the registered owner under the law of the “TRNC”. The land is situated in the village of Lapithos, in the district of Kyrenia. The applicants built a villa there and regularly use the property as their holiday home.

Mr M.A. (“the plaintiff”), a Greek-Cypriot, claimed ownership of the above land and brought proceedings against the applicants before the District Court of Nicosia (“the District Court”) seeking damages for trespass to his property. He also applied for a demolition order of the villa, swimming pool and fence and for the return of the property.

On 26 October 2004 two writs were issued in Greek by the District Court and served on the second applicant in person at the applicants' holiday home. She did not sign them. The writs stated that in order to prevent a default judgment an appearance had to be entered before the District Court within 10 days of service, namely by 8 November 2004. The applicants obtained the assistance of a lawyer, Mr G. M., who agreed to enter an appearance on their behalf on 8 November 2004. However, the lawyer did not enter an appearance on that day. No explanation for this has been given.

On 8 November 2004 the plaintiff filed an application for judgment to be entered in default of appearance. On 9 November 2004, as no one had entered an appearance for the applicants, the District Court gave a default judgment on the plaintiff's claim. The applicants' lawyer attended the District Court on the above date in order to enter an appearance on behalf of the applicants but judgment had already been entered. The order of the District Court required immediate demolition of the villa and other constructions which the applicants had erected on the land and delivery to the plaintiff of free possession of the land. It further required the applicants to refrain from continuing the unlawful intervention on the land. Orders for damages (special and mesne profits) and costs were also made.

On 15 November 2004 the applicants' lawyers, Mr G.M. and Mr M.A., entered an appearance on behalf of the applicants and filed an application to have the judgment set aside.

On 19 April 2005, after hearing evidence and arguments from the parties, the District Court delivered a judgment dismissing the application.

In its judgment the District Court held, firstly, that it had jurisdiction to try the case as the land in question was situated in the district of Kyrenia which came under its jurisdiction following the merger of that district with the district of Nicosia in 1974 (relying on/ referring to sections 3 (4) and 21 (2) of the Courts of Justice Law 1960 - Law 14/1960, as amended; and Notification No. 1383 in the Official Gazette of the Republic of 13 September 1974). The District Court relied on the Court's judgment in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey ((merits), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996VI) as authority that ownership of land in the northern part of Cyprus remained with its original Greek-Cypriot owners. It noted that the argument that the court should take into account the de facto situation in the north had been put forward and dismissed by the Court in its judgment in the case of Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios v. Turkey (no. 16163/90, 31 July 2003). The District Court then considered the merits of the application. Relying, inter alia, on the Court's judgments in the cases of Loizidou v. Turkey (cited above) and Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001IV), it held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to his land. It further found that the conduct of the applicants towards the property amounted to trespass and neither “local custom” nor the claim that the applicants had acted in good faith could provide a defence. It noted that Council Regulation No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“Regulation No. 44/2001”) was not applicable in the case as it concerned exclusively the question of the recognition and enforcement of judgments in other jurisdictions and was irrelevant to the question of setting aside the judgment obtained by the plaintiff. The District Court concluded that the applicants had failed to show that they had a prima facie or arguable defence and dismissed the application on that ground. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

It appears that due to difficulties faced in serving the applicants' lawyers, whose offices were in the northern part of Cyprus, with documents and/or notices of hearings, on 14 March 2006, one of the applicants' lawyers, Mr M.A., informed the Supreme Court that he would appoint an office of a colleague in Nicosia as an office for service and would notify the Registrar of this.

According to the applicants, on 15 November 2006, a bailiff of the Supreme Court telephoned the office of one of the applicants' lawyers and asked them to contact the court to pick up the date for the appeal before the Supreme Court. According to the applicants a message was left with the secretary. The applicants submit that no written notification was sent to their lawyers and that, on 13 December 2006, one of their lawyers, Mr M.A., happened to be at the Supreme Court representing other clients and was called in by a Supreme Court judge to appear for the applicants at the hearing. The applicants state that this was the first time that Mr M. A. had heard of the date of the appeal.

The appeal was heard on the above date.

The verbatim record of the hearing reports the following submissions by the applicant's lawyer (translation):

“Mr M.A.: please there is no need for translation as I understand and speak the Greek language. It would therefore be a waste of time.

Your honour Mr President, your honours, at this stage I do not wish to waste the Court's time and I will simply adopt the outline of my address.

The only thing I wish to add is that the Court, the District Court, had this case at an unfortunate time when there was no arrangement as to whether the retainers would be in the Greek, English or Turkish (language). As you will see in the file before us, we asked for the same facility in this Court too. In the end we agreed that it would be in the Greek language. It was a time immediately after the opening of the roadblocks when cases of such a nature came before the Courts in Nicosia and the Registrar had his doubts. I remember asking whether the retainer would be in English and they told us that the authorities of the Republic use only the Greek and Turkish language. I brought a retainer before 1974 in English, those we had in our Court and consequently there was a period of confusion. And I am sure that this confusion led to the decision that the Court gave in these circumstances in the wrong exercise of its discretion.

All this case is based on the case of Wella and I argue and submit that her honour the judge in the lower Court approached it wrongly. Thank you.”

Following the submissions of the plaintiff's lawyer, the Supreme Court reserved judgment.

Subsequently, on 19 December 2006 the applicants' lawyers sought to file an amended notice of appeal before the Supreme Court. In particular, in a letter dated 18 December 2006, the applicants requested the Supreme Court to hold a two to three day hearing so that all relevant principles of European Community law could be examined; reminded the Supreme Court that it had a duty, under Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to consider all relevant principles of European Community law; and, lastly, relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention expressed the view that the hearing of 13 December 2006 had not afforded sufficient time for the examination of the complicated questions of European Community law that arose in the case. To their letter the applicants attached a detailed memorial and a copy of the judgment of the High Court of the United Kingdom.

The applicants stated that they had not been permitted to file the aforementioned documents. On 20 December, however, the clerk at the Registry informed them that although the documents would not be formally accepted they would be shown to the judges.

In the meantime the court had fixed the case for judgment for 21 December 2006. On that date, immediately before judgment was delivered, the verbatim record reports the following exchange as having taken place (translation):

“Court: Today we fixed the case for judgment. Mr M.A., you are submitting an application, which has not been of course translated but you have made a letter in English. If I understand correctly you wish to file amended grounds of appeal and reopen the case? The case has finished and has been reserved. Will you file an application for amended grounds of appeal at this stage?

Mr M.A.: We will withdraw this application.

Court: There are decisions that at this stage after judgment has been reserved the case is not reopened unless the Court itself requires any clarification.

We will ignore this application and proceed to deliver judgment. The judgment is unanimous. The judgment will be given by Judge Nikolatos.

Mr M.A.: We do not need a translator. We waive the right for translation in Turkish.”

The Supreme Court then delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal. With regard to the issue of jurisdiction the court noted the following:

“At the beginning of the address of learned counsel for the appellants, argumentation was put forward which aimed to show that the first instance court did not have jurisdiction or territorial competence to try the case before it. The issue of the jurisdiction of the first instance court was raised before us also by learned counsel for the respondent, who indeed invited this court to refer the issue of jurisdiction to the Court of the European Communities as a preliminary legal point. Following the observation made by our Court that the issue of jurisdiction is not raised in the present appeal as it does not constitute any of the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the respondent abandoned in essence his original suggestion. We do not intend to examine the question of jurisdiction or territorial competence of the first instance court as this matter is not raised in the appeal and is not a ground of appeal. It is correct that the matter of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and can be raised ex proprio motu by the Court, but in the present case it is not raised in the grounds of appeal and our Court does not consider it useful to raise it on its own initiative.”

In the meantime, on 18 October 2005, the plaintiff applied under Regulation No. 44/2001 for recognition and enforcement in the United Kingdom of the judgments of the Nicosia District Court; namely, (i) the default judgment of 9 November 2004 and (ii) the judgment of 19 April 2005.

On 21 October 2005 Master Eyre ordered that the above judgments be registered in and be declared enforceable pursuant to the above Regulation.

The applicants brought a successful challenge against that order before the High Court under Article 43 of Regulation No. 44/2001. By order dated 6 September 2006 Mr Justice Jack allowed the appeal and set aside the registration of the two judgments. The applicants were successful on two grounds. The first was that Mr Justice Jack considered that the effect of Protocol No. 10 to the Act of Accession, was that the acquis, and therefore Regulation No. 44/2001, were of no effect in relation to matters which related to the northern part of Cyprus. Hence, the plaintiff could not rely on the acquis in order to secure the recognition of the judgments he had obtained. In this respect, he noted, however, that the land was within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and that the case law of the Court showed that the “TRNC” laws could not be relied on by the applicants to deprive the plaintiff of his title to the land. The second ground arose from the circumstances in which service of the original proceedings was effected and the time that was permitted for entry of an appearance to the proceedings. He granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff lodged an appeal under Article 44 of Regulation No. 44/2001 to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales).

By order dated 26 June 2007 the Court of Appeal referred to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) for a ruling on the issues raised, five questions being specified in the schedule to the order. The questions, in sum, concerned, firstly, the application of Regulation No. 44/2001 to a judgment relating to claims to the ownership of land situated in the northern area of Cyprus, in view of suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in that area pursuant to Article 1 (1) of Protocol No. 10; and, secondly, the interpretation of Articles 35 (1) and 34 (1) and (2) of Regulation No. 44/2001 with regard to the possible grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement within the meaning of these provisions.

Following an oral hearing before the ECJ, Advocate General Kokott delivered an opinion on 18 December 2008. In her view Article 1 (1) of Protocol No. 10 and Articles 34 (1) and (2) and 35 (1) of Regulation No. 44/2001 did not constitute grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement of the default judgment. With regard to Article 34 (2) Advocate General Kokott concluded as follows:

“123. Article 34(2) of Regulation No. 44/2001 is to be interpreted as meaning that recognition and enforcement of a default judgment may not be refused by reference to irregularities in the service of the document which instituted the proceedings, if it was possible for the defendant, who initially failed to enter an appearance, to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment, if the courts of the State where the judgment was given then reviewed the judgment in full and fair proceedings, and if there are no indications that the defendant's right to a fair hearing was infringed in those proceedings.”

On 28 April 2009, the Court (Grand Chamber) gave judgment. It ruled as follows:

“1. The suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of that Member State does not exercise effective control, provided for by Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 10 on Cyprus to the Act concerning the conditions of accession [to the European Union] of ... the Republic of Cyprus ... and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, does not preclude the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to a judgment which is given by a Cypriot court sitting in the area of the island effectively controlled by the Cypriot Government, but concerns land situated in areas not so controlled.

Article 35(1) of Regulation No. 44/2001 does not authorise the court of a Member State to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by the courts of another Member State concerning land situated in an area of the latter State over which its Government does not exercise effective control.

The fact that a judgment given by the courts of a Member State concerning land situated in an area of that State over which its Government does not exercise effective control, cannot, as a practical matter, be enforced where the land is situated does not constitute a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement under Article 34(1) of Regulation No. 44/2001 and it does not mean that such a judgment is unenforceable for the purposes of Article 38(1) of that regulation.”

Further, the ECJ found, unlike the High Court, that Article 34 (2) of Regulation No. 44/2001, could not legitimately be relied upon to refuse recognition or enforcement of a default judgment as the applicants had been able and did commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment of the District Court. In particular, the ECJ stated as follows:

The recognition or enforcement of a default judgment cannot be refused under Article 34(2) of Regulation No. 44/2001 where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence.”

The Court of Appeal then gave judgment on 19 January 2010 in favour of the plaintiff. It first noted that the answers of the ECJ to the questions put were such that, subject to the further issues raised before it, the appeal should be allowed and the orders of Master Eyre registering and declaring enforceable the Cypriot judgments reinstated. It then went on to examine the two issues raised by the applicants for determination. These concerned the denial of enforcement on the basis of public policy and the possibility that the ruling of the ECJ was affected by the apparent bias of the President of that court and whether further questions on these matters should be referred to the ECJ. The Court of Appeal found firstly, that there was no public policy applicable in the United Kingdom to which the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the Cypriot court would be manifestly contrary and secondly, that there was no appearance of bias on the part of the President of the ECJ. It therefore considered that no reference on the above issues should be made to the ECJ.

From a letter dated 9 February 2010 sent to the Court by the applicants' lawyers it appears that the applicants have filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and that their application for stay of execution of the District Court's judgments was refused.

“4. The appellant may, by his notice, appeal from the whole or any part of any judgment or order, and the notice shall state whether the whole or part only of the judgment or order is complained of, and in the latter case shall specify such part. The notice shall also state all the grounds of appeal and set forth fully the reasons relied upon for the grounds stated. Each ground of appeal shall be set out in a separate paragraph. After each ground of appeal the reasoning thereof shall be set out separately Any notice of appeal may be amended at any time as the Court of Appeal may think fit.”

“8. The Court of Appeal shall have all the powers and duties as to amendment and otherwise of the Trial Court, together with full discretionary power to receive further evidence upon questions of fact, such evidence to be either by oral examination in Court, by affidavit, or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner. Such further evidence may be given without special leave upon interlocutory applications, or in any case as to matters which have occurred after the date of the decision from which the appeal is brought. Upon appeals from a judgment after trial or hearing of any cause or matter upon the merits, such further evidence (save as to matters subsequent as aforesaid) shall be admitted on special grounds only, and not without special leave of the Court. The Court of Appeal shall have power to draw inferences of fact and to give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been made, and to make such further or other order as the case may require. The powers aforesaid may be exercised by the said Court notwithstanding that the notice of appeal may be that a part only of the decision may be reversed or varied, and such powers may also be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have appealed from or complained of the decision. The Court of Appeal shall have power to make such order as to the whole or any part of the costs of the appeal as may be just.”

“15. (2) Where the appeal is only from part of a judgment or order, the hearing shall be confined to that part. Further, the hearing shall be confined to the grounds stated and the reasons set forth in the notice of appeal. But these provisions shall be subject to the discretion of the Court of Appeal”.

Pursuant to Article 21(2) of Law 14/60 (as amended) where an action concerns any matter relating to real property that action shall be brought before the District Court of the district in which such property is situated.

By order of the Supreme Court published on 13 September 1974 in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus with Notification No. 1383 following the invasion of Cyprus, the territories of the districts of Kyrenia and Nicosia were reorganised. The power for merging of districts is granted to the Supreme Court by Section 3 (4) of Law 14/60 (as amended by Law 136/91).

Under domestic law if the defendant does not enter an appearance in the 10 days following service of writ of summons instituting proceedings the plaintiff may apply for a default judgment. Entering an appearance is an act which does not require the defendant to set out the nature of any defence.

Under Order 17 r. 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules:

“Where judgment is entered pursuant to any of the preceding rules of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Court in a proper case to set aside or vary such judgment upon such terms may be just”.

In proceedings to set aside a default judgment the claimant is required to establish the existence of a prima facie arguable defence concerning the merits of the case. The claimant is not required to prove his defence. Further, the claimant will be required to put forward an explanation concerning his/her failure to enter an appearance (see, for example, the Supreme Court's judgment of 25 October 2006 in the case of Elenitsa Constantinides v. Nur Habib Hissin, (2004) 1 C.L.R.1774; the Supreme Court's judgment of 18 September 2001 in the case of Bush and others v. Yiannis (2001) 1 C.L.R. 1432, relying on the case of Evans v. Bartlan (1937) 2 All ER 646).

The application of the acquis shall be suspended in those areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control.

The Council, acting unanimously on the basis of a proposal from the Commission, shall decide on the withdrawal of the suspension referred to in paragraph 1.

Regulation No. 44/2001 lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters.

The relevant provisions of the Regulation provide as follows:

“(16) Mutual trust in the administration of justice in the Community justifies judgments given in a Member State being recognised automatically without the need for any procedure except in cases of dispute.

(17) By virtue of the same principle of mutual trust, the procedure for making enforceable in one Member State a judgment given in another must be efficient and rapid. To that end, the declaration that a judgment is enforceable should be issued virtually automatically after purely formal checks of the documents supplied, without there being any possibility for the court to raise of its own motion any of the grounds for non-enforcement provided for by this Regulation.

(18) However, respect for the rights of the defence means that the defendant should be able to appeal in an adversarial procedure, against the declaration of enforceability, if he considers one of the grounds for non-enforcement to be present. Redress procedures should also be available to the claimant where his application for a declaration of enforceability has been rejected.”

“The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile:

“1. In proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated.

“A judgment shall not be recognised:

If such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought;

Where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so;....”

“1. Moreover, a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections 3, 4 or 6 of Chapter II, or in a case provided for in Article 72.

In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in the foregoing paragraph, the court or authority applied to shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of the Member State of origin based its jurisdiction.

Subject to ... paragraph 1, the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed. The test of public policy referred to in point 1 of Article 34 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction.”

“1. A judgment given in a Member State and enforceable in that State shall be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it has been declared enforceable there.

“1. The court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in Articles 34 and 35. It shall give its decision without delay.

Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance.”

Article 43 of the Regulations provides for an appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability. Article 44 provides for a further appeal.


Violation of Art. 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Granemore, County Armagh.

At about 10.40 p.m., shortly after closing time, on 6 June 1976, a police officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) drove a car, stolen by RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure, up to the Rock Bar, a public house. The applicant was leaving the bar at that time. He was shot twice in the stomach by McClure, who then placed a 10lb gelignite bomb against the door of the pub. The detonator exploded but the bomb failed to explode. At the later trial a reserve police constable, William McCaughey, stated that shots were fired by his companions at the injured man on the ground and then he fired a number of shots through the window of the bar. Bullet strike marks were later found around the darts board inside the bar, where there had been seventeen people. No-one else was physically injured.

The applicant was taken to hospital in an ambulance and police attended the scene, sealing off the area while an army technical officer examined the explosive device and ensured that it was in a safe condition. A Scene of Crime Officer examined the scene, took possession of material associated with the bomb and a gun recovered from a burnt out car found approximately one mile away, which police linked to the attack. Photographs of the bar were taken and maps prepared.

The investigation did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. In the course of the investigation, the police arrested McCaughey, who, in the course of questioning, revealed his part in the abduction of the priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents. McCaughey made allegations incriminating himself and police officer McClure in respect of the Rock Bar attack. McClure was arrested and admitted involvement. Two further serving police officers, Ian Mitchell and David Wilson, also admitted involvement in, or prior knowledge of, the attack on the bar. McCaughey admitted firing the shot which wounded the applicant.

The applicant was aware that charges were pending against four police officers. He had been contacted by the police in April 1980 and summoned to appear in Belfast Crown Court on 23 April 1980. He was subsequently advised of various date changes and then that the case was postponed and that he would be contacted. In fact the hearing took place on 30 June 1980. The applicant had not been informed and learned about the outcome on the radio.

Three men, McCaughey, McClure and Mitchell, faced charges of attempted murder of the applicant, wounding the applicant with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1961, attempted murder of the persons inside the bar, causing an explosion contrary to section 2 of the Explosives Substances Act 1883, possession of explosive substances with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury and possession of firearms and ammunition with intent. The three officers pleaded not guilty to the charges of attempted murder; McClure and Mitchell pleaded not guilty to wounding the applicant. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) entered a nolle prosequi in respect of those charges which accordingly were not proceeded with. No reasons were given for this decision. The only person facing a charge concerning the applicant was McCaughey, who received a term of seven years for wounding him. McClure was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for causing an explosion, possession of an explosive substance with intent and possession of firearms and ammunition with intent, all sentences suspended for three years. Another RUC officer, David Wilson, was charged with withholding information contrary to section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967, based on the fact that he had been aware of the attack beforehand and had not taken any steps to prevent it.

With the exception of McCaughey, the other officers received suspended prison terms. In sentencing, Lord Lowry stated inter alia:

“... It does not seem realistic to believe that after all that they have endured – some with their careers in ruins, others with their careers in jeopardy- that they require much by way of deterrent or by way of reform, and no proper sentence which I pass will make an impression on terrorists while other members of the police force are no doubt already embarrassed, sufficiently embarrassed and shocked by what has happened in these cases and been seen to happen to their colleagues. ... I must remember that whatever sentence is just it would follow that it would be imposed on a different and lower scale from that appropriate to terrorists, no matter whichever side, whose aim is to achieve their political ends by violence and to attack the very fabric of society.”

It had been advanced by the defence and accepted by the trial judge that McCaughey had only aimed to shoot the applicant in the legs and had done so.

McClure had also been facing charges in relation to his involvement in the attack on Donnelly's Bar, Silverbridge, in 1975 in which three people had been killed (see application no. 32457/04, Brecknell v. the United Kingdom). These charges were later dropped.

In the course of the investigation in 1978, McCaughey made revelations giving rise to investigations in eleven specific cases, some of which were linked in terms of the identities of those involved, the modus operandi or by virtue of the ballistic examinations of weapons used. Nine suspects were arrested in total, including five police officers, and all were eventually charged with offences.

One of those implicated was a police officer John Weir who was named as having been involved in the murder of a shopkeeper called Strathearn in Ahoghill in April 1977: he was convicted for that murder in June 1980 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Government stated that both McCaughey and Weir refused to name the two loyalist paramilitaries also involved with them in the murder unless they received immunity from prosecution. The police and prosecuting authority took the decision prior to the trial not to enter into any process of bargaining with Weir and McCaughey. While both were approached by the police after their convictions to see if at that stage they would give evidence against the loyalist paramilitaries, each again refused to do so unless there was something in it for themselves. The Government stated that during the period in which Weir was detained he was interviewed on a large number of occasions. At no time did he implicate himself or others in any offence other than the Strathearn murder.

On 1 February 1993 John Weir was released from prison on licence. In January 1999, he made a statement to a journalist alleging RUC and Ulster Defence Regiment ("UDR") collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the Portadown area in the mid-1970s. This statement was published in the Sunday Times newspaper in March 1999. It was obtained by the Patrick Finucane Centre, a human rights non-governmental organisation in Derry (“the Centre”).

John Weir's statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents. He alleged inter alia that RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure had told him that the murder of the Reavey family members was carried out by Robert McConnell, a member of the UDR, Laurence McClure, Johnny Mitchell, another Reserve Constable in the RUC and McClure's brother who was not a member of the security forces. The statement also made links between this incident and other attacks allegedly carried out by members of the security forces, both RUC and UDR, and loyalist paramilitaries. This group used the farmhouse in Glennane owned by James Mitchell, a RUC reservist, as a base from which to carry out attacks on Catholics and nationalists. Other attacks allegedly included the murder of Colm McCartney and Sean Farmer at a bogus vehicle checkpoint in August 1975 (see application no. 34575/04); the attack on Donnelly's Bar in which Trevor Brecknell, Michael Donnelly and Patrick Donnelly were killed (see application no. 32457/04); and the murder of Joseph, Barry and Declan O'Dowd and wounding of Barney O'Dowd (see application no. 34622/04). Weir also linked these attacks to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in which 33 people were killed in the Republic of Ireland.

On or about 10 June 1999, RTE, an Irish television channel, broadcast a television programme that contained allegations of security force involvement in a number of deaths, including that of Trevor Brecknell. Weir made allegations on that programme that members of the RUC and UDR were directly involved in the attack on Donnelly's Bar. A BBC Spotlight programme produced a similar documentary dealing with these allegations.

These allegations attracted considerable attention on both sides of the Irish border and became the subject of police investigation in both jurisdictions. The Government stated that the police investigation in Northern Ireland was focussed on determining whether Weir's allegations should be assessed as sufficiently credible to require a full investigation. They obtained from the journalist an edited transcript of the interview with Weir. While his whereabouts were unknown to the RUC, Weir met with senior Irish police officers at the Irish Embassy on 15 April 1999. A copy of his statement was provided by the Garda to the RUC, along with a further statement made by Weir to another journalist dated 3 February 1999. The police analysed the available materials and sought to identify the personalities to be interviewed. It became apparent that some had died and that others, living abroad, could not be traced. A series of seven interviews were conducted, under cautions, between July and December 2001, of those individuals central to Weir's account who could be traced. No charges were preferred. The interviews followed the format of Weir's allegations being put to the interviewee for his or her response. The predominant response was denial of any involvement and claims that Weir had been untruthful. No admissions were made by any interviewee. Interviews were also conducted with less central personalities and with police officers involved in interviewing Weir in 1978. The latter stated that Weir had not mentioned the matters now being alleged.

Meetings were held regularly with RUC counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. The RUC co-operated also with the judicial inquiry established in the Republic of Ireland into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings (see the description of the inquiry in the case of Brecknell referred to above). Amongst matters about which the RUC team provided information to the inquiry was ballistics information which linked some of the weapons used to more than one incident. In February 2000 a substantial report was compiled by the RUC for the Garda dealing with Weir's allegations. It profiled Weir and dealt inter alia with a description of the 1978 investigation into McCaughey, Weir and others. It concluded that the investigation would continue but that his credibility was in doubt. According to the Government, despite inquiries being conducted, Weir's whereabouts could not be traced. This report was not disclosed as the investigation was continuing. An internal RUC report dated 27 February 2001 concluded that it would be necessary to interview Weir before any view could be finalised in respect of the credibility of his allegations: such interview was not possible as his whereabouts were not known. The report noted the absence of any previous mention of the allegations before 1999 and that much of what he said was hearsay and speculation. Enquiries made of the British Embassy in Nigeria (where he had a known address) and the criminal intelligence service and others failed to locate Weir. Contact was made with the Garda and the secretariat of the Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan bombings without positive result.

The Serious Crime Review Team (“SCRT”) was established in March 2004, with responsibilities including the review of all historical murders by way of case assessment for evidential and investigative opportunities.

Unlike the other case (Brecknell, Reavey, O'Dowd and McCartney, cited above), the Rock Bar case was not referred to the SCRT. This was because it was not a murder case and there had been four convictions. Nonetheless because of connections with other cases, the case was also referred to the Historical Enquiry Team (HET). The HET director of Investigations, Detective Chief Superintendent James of the London Metropolitan Police Force, took over personal supervision of the investigation which has progressed through the first three of five stages of the HET process (collection of all relevant material; assessment of the investigations to date; review of evidence, with intelligence and open and non-police sources, together with a meeting with the families of the victims of the attack). As a number of investigative opportunities were identified and to be followed up, the case was to continue to be processed by HET, which had been put in touch with Weir by the Centre. The Government submitted that if any evidence of police involvement in the murders was found, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland would then become involved. The Government have provided recent information that Weir finally agreed to meet with the HET in Dublin; he refused, however, to make a written statement or to give evidence in court.

There has been contact between the police and the applicant, as well as with the Centre acting on behalf of a number of concerned families. In particular, there were meetings in September 2002 with Detective Chief Inspector Paterson, and a meeting with the Chief Constable in June and August 2004; in May 2006, Detective Chief Superintendent James met the applicant together with the person who owned the bar at the time; and there has also been extensive correspondence with the families or their representatives.

See Brecknell, cited above (§§ 39-41).

See Brecknell, cited above (§§ 42-49).