Tribunals & Inquiries Cases

Question 1

R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003]

Answer 1

INQUIRIES
• A family sought to challenge the decision of the Home Secretary not to hold an inquiry in public on the death of their relative who was murdered while in legal custody. They were successful. the Court relied on Article 2 ECHR on the right to life to find that there was an obligation to investigate the death of the petitioner’s relative as it was ‘in the public interest for a public inquiry to be held into the death of a person who at the time of the death was being held in legal custody’.
• This case should be viewed as fact specific
• Not all governmental refusals to hold an inquiry can be successfully challenged through JR

Question 2

Keyu and others v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and another [2015]

Answer 2

INQUIRIES
• The petitioners’ claim under Article 2 ECHR was unsuccessful but they also relied on common law grounds to challenge the respondents’ failure to hold an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 s1.
• Petitioners argued that the decision was irrational and disproportionate
• “The respondents clearly considered the request for an inquiry seriously and rejected it for reasons which are individually defensible and relevant, and which cumulatively render it impossible to characterise their conclusion as unreasonable, let alone irrational”. [129] per Lord Neuberger
• Lady Hale dissenting: The decision was unreasonable. The Respondents did not consider the public interest in properly inquiring into an event of this magnitude, the private interests of the relatives and survivors in knowing the truth and the importance of setting the record straight. In this case, the value of establishing the truth was overwhelming