“The Secretary of State’s preliminary decision is based solely onarticle 1 ECHR and he will reconsider his decision not to establish an inquisitorial inquiry at the end of the appeal process, if his appeal in respect of this case is not successful. His preliminary view was that there was no credible breach of article 2 but he will consider further, at that stage, whether an inquisitorial inquiry is warranted.”
“to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at least have the satisfaction of knowing that lessons learned from his death may save the lives of others.”
“Crowd of 300-400 surged PS [police station] with brick and sticks. Warning shots fired and 1 x eye injury.”
“Lull in battle crowd has moved back 200m. Snipers have been put out into obvious features.” iii) At 2041 hours, a SITREP from the police station: “Street now sealed at both ends, crowd at 150m distance. Baton rds being fired. Crown to N & S of PS 3 x grenades thrown.”
“Crowd of 300-400 attacked PS [police station] with bricks and burning tyres. Warning shots keep [unreadable] to attack no cas apart from eye injury.” iv) At 2000 hours, a message from the police station reporting a casualty (“bleeding back of leg but walking”). v) At 2011 hours, a SITREP stating “200-300 crowd backed off N of PS people are shooting at loc. ... more baton rounds needed.”
“1921 – Large crowd forming 300-400 pax in Al Tannumah pax marching towards police stn … crowd building barricades to north and south of police stn. Reports of RPG and SA [small arms] in crowd. … Crowd 3-400 surged towards police stn with bricks and sticks. Warning shots fired by C/S [call sign]. Explosion possible grenade thrown 1 x casualty shrapnel wounds to leg [but] still walking. ... 2023 hrs 1 x casualty sustained after another grenade thrown (minor flesh wound). 2032 hrs – Lull in battle at Al Tannumah crowd withdrawn 300m. Snipers placed out by friendly C/S at obvious locations. 2041 hrs – Street at police station sealed off at both ends 20 baton rds fired and a further 3 grenades thrown by crowd. Incident has died down by 2309 hrs.”
“Some people started firing at the British forces. In turn they fired back which resulted in my son being injured by a gunshot. He was injured as a result of the British forces shooting at the demonstrators. My son was shot in the chest. The gunshot penetrated his back.”
“Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
“police officers should not be left in a vacuum when exercising their duties, whether in the context of a prepared operation or a spontaneous pursuit of a person perceived to be dangerous: a legal and administrative framework should define the limited circumstances in which law enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the international standards which have been developed in this respect.”
“When lethal force is used within a ‘policing operation’ by the authorities it is difficult to separate the State’s negative obligations under the Convention from its positive obligations. In such cases the Court will normally examine whether the police operation was planned and controlled by the authorities so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force and human losses, and whether all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of a security operation were taken.”
“Only if the activities necessitating the resort to lethal force qualify as ‘direct participation in hostilities’ and are not mere internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, is the situation governed by the rules regulating the conduct of hostilities. Obviously, classifying the nature of the activity must be circumstance-specific depending on the attendant facts.”
“the use of armed force by civilian authorities to suppress riots and other forms of civil unrest, prevent looting, or otherwise maintain law and order in a conflict area may cause death, injury, or destruction, but generally it would not constitute part of the hostilities conducted between parties to an armed conflict.”
“This guidance does not affect your inherent right to self-defence. However, in all situations you are to use no more force than absolutely necessary”
“You may only open fire against a person if he/she is committing or about to commit an act likely to endanger life and there is no other way to prevent the danger” (original emphasis). Paragraph 4 of Card Alpha required a challenge to be given before opening fire, unless either “(a) to do this would be to increase the risk of death or grave injury to you or any other persons other than the attacker(s), OR (b) you or others in the immediate vicinity are under armed attack”
“If you have to open fire you are to: a. Fire only aimed shots, AND b. Fire no more rounds than are necessary, AND c. Take all reasonable precautions not to injure anyone other than your target.” a. Fire only aimed shots, AND b. Fire no more rounds than are necessary, AND c. Take all reasonable precautions not to injure anyone other than your target.”
“the responsibility of the State is not confined to circumstances when there is significant evidence that misdirected fire from agents of the State has killed a civilian. It may also be engaged where they failed to take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of a security operation mounted against an opposing group with a view to avoiding and, in any event, to minimising, incidental loss of civilian life.”
“At around about 11am my son was in the street outside my home. He was about 10 metres from where I was watching, which was inside the house. I do not know how it came about that the sub-munition (also known as a ‘cluster bomb’) exploded and killed my son. I am not sure whether my son picked up the sub-munition or whether it simply went off when he was close by. I had a clear view of the incident.”
“I was sitting in my house with my family [when I] heard a helicopter approaching our house. Jaafar was outside playing by himself in the street whilst the rest of my children were playing inside the house. I suddenly heard a bomb close by so I immediately rushed out to check on Jaafar. ... There was no military presence but I saw the helicopter flying off in the distance. Once outside, I could see my son lying on the street. I was able to spot him immediately. As I ran over I could already see that he had been hit.”
“where there is a plausible, or credible, allegation, piece of evidence or item of information relevant to the identification, and eventual prosecution or punishment of the perpetrator of an unlawful killing, the authorities are under an obligation to take further investigative measures.”
“if article 2 does not impose the obligation to pursue an investigation into an incident, the fact that the State chooses to pursue some form of inquiry does not thereby have the effect of imposing article 2 standards on the proceedings.”
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”
“With the lapse of time, memories of witnesses fade, witnesses may die or become untraceable, evidence deteriorates or ceases to exist, and the prospects that any effective investigation can be undertaken will increasingly diminish; and the Court’s own examination and judgment may be deprived of meaningfulness and effectiveness.”
“although it may seem somewhat harsh on the facts of this case, I am of the view that, if the appellants’ case, in so far as it is properly based on article 2, were held to have been brought within time, it would make the strict time limits in section 7(5) and in article 35 something of a paper tiger in many cases where there is a claim that a death should be investigated.”
“there is little ground to be overly prescriptive as regards the possibility of an obligation to investigate unlawful killings arising many years after the events since the public interest in obtaining the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators is firmly recognised, particularly in the context of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
“Many of the military witnesses I have interviewed suffer from PTSD and psychological trauma. For example some, having initially been seen, have suffered setbacks and relapses in considering the draft statements which they have been sent for signature. It appears that many of them require medical assistance because currently, for reasons which it is unnecessary for me to go into, they have not been receiving it. It should not be assumed that these conditions are specifically attributable to the cases being investigated, but arise from events occurring during their service in Iraq.”
“Desirable as it may be ... to give close attention to these historic allegations, ... I believe some regard has to be paid to the practical difficulties and the likely time which it will take if attempts are made to [investigate the incidents] as though they occurred recently ...”
“If these conclusions are considered by the Court to have merit then I recognise that it would be desirable for some guidance to be given to the IHAT and the SPA as to the proper way to make the initial decision on prosecution. It might be said that a consideration of the material available on the papers is likely to be susceptible to a clear conclusion. But it is probably more appropriate for the Court with the assistance of counsel to formulate the necessary guidance.”
“the proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.”
“The Director of Service Prosecutions is a lawyer of very considerable distinction and experience. He should have been involved in making a decision at the outset of each case involving death referred to IHAT as to whether prosecution was a realistic prospect and, if there was something to suggest it might be, in directing the way that the inquiry was to be conducted and in a regular review of each case to see if a prosecution remained a realistic possibility.”
“there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with an offence if, were the evidence suggesting that the person committed the offence to be adduced in proceedings for the offence, the person could properly be convicted.”