Al-Saadoon & Ors v Secretary of State for Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 17, 2015,  EWHC 715 (Admin)
|Resolution Date:||March 17, 2015|
|Issuing Organization:||Administrative Court|
|Actores:||Al-Saadoon & Ors v Secretary of State for Defence|
Case Nos: CO/5608/2008; CO/8695/2009; CO/6345/2008;
CO/9925/2008; CO/11858/2009; CO/11442/2008;
CO/953/2009; CO/9719/2009; CO/12803/2009;
CO/1684/2010; CO/2631/2010, C8620/2010
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 715 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael Fordham QC, Danny Friedman QC, Dan Squires and Jason Pobjoy (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers) for the Claimants
James Eadie QC, Karen Steyn QC and Kate Grange (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) for the Defendants
Phillippa Kaufmann QC and Alison Pickup (instructed by Leigh Day) for the Leigh Day Claimants
Hearing dates: 20-23 October 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Justice Leggatt:
One of the legacies of the Iraq war is litigation. Many claims have been brought in the courts of this country arising out of the British military involvement in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. Although it is now some six years since British forces completed their withdrawal from Iraq, the litigation is not abating. Most of the claims involve allegations of ill-treatment, unlawful detention and, in some cases, unlawful killing of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers. These claims fall into two groups.
The first group consists of claims for judicial review in which the claimants are seeking orders from the court to require the Secretary of State for Defence to investigate alleged human rights violations. I will refer to these claims as the ``public law claims''. At the beginning of 2014 there were 190 public law claims, but since then another 875 claims have been added. I am told by Public Interest Lawyers, who represent all the claimants in the main proceedings brought by Al-Saadoon and others, that they expect at least 165 more claims to be added to the register of claims before the end of March 2015, bringing the total number of claims to at least 1,230. Separate judicial review proceedings have been brought by two individuals, Yunus Rahmatullah and Amanatullah Ali, who are represented by Leigh Day.
The second group of claims consists of claims for compensation brought against the Ministry of Defence. To date, more than 1,000 such claims have been issued: some 294 of these claims have been settled but the rest are still pending. I will refer to these claims as the ``private law claims''.
This judgment follows a trial of eleven preliminary issues raised by the public law claims. The directions for this trial were agreed between the parties to the Al-Saadoon proceedings and ordered by the court with the aim of clarifying the scope of the duty of the United Kingdom to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by British forces in Iraq. The issues have been argued by reference to the assumed facts of certain cases which the parties have selected as test cases. Because some of the issues are also relevant to the private law claims and to the claims of Mr Rahmatullah and Mr Ali, the claimants represented by Leigh Day also took part in the hearing.
The preliminary issues have required consideration of a large body of law. The bundles of authorities prepared for the hearing contained over 300 cases and other legal materials, many of which were cited in the written arguments. I am grateful to all the parties for their detailed written submissions. Above all, the oral argument was conducted with conspicuous skill and helped to distil the key points in issue.
The issues in brief
The source of the duty on the state to investigate allegations of wrongdoing on which the public law claimants rely is the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Whether, and if so to what extent, the Convention applies to the activities of British armed forces in Iraq has itself been the subject of extensive litigation. It is now clearly established, however, and is accepted by the Secretary of State, that anyone who was taken into the custody of British forces in Iraq had certain rights under the Convention which the United Kingdom was bound to respect: in particular, the right to life under article 2, the right under article 3 not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment and the right to liberty under article 5. It is also clearly established that where a person who is within the jurisdiction of a Convention state is killed by agents of the state or dies in state custody or makes a credible allegation of torture or other serious ill treatment by state agents, the state has a duty to carry out an investigation. That investigation must be independent and it must be effective.
There are, however, two major areas of controversy about the scope of the duty to investigate which are the focus of the present preliminary issues. The first is whether, and if so when, the Convention applied to the use of force against Iraqi civilians who were not in the custody of British forces. In particular, the Secretary of State does not accept that (save during the period when the UK was an occupying power) individuals who were killed during security operations carried out by British forces in Iraq were ``within [the UK's] jurisdiction'' for the purpose of article 1 of the Convention such that the UK was bound to secure their right to life under article 2. If this is correct, it follows that the UK has no duty under the Convention to investigate the deaths of such individuals. The claimants dispute this and argue that the UK's jurisdiction under article 1 is of wider scope. The first preliminary issue is aimed at resolving this dispute.
The second major area of controversy is the extent to which, where individuals were within the jurisdiction of the UK, there is a duty to investigate alleged violations of their rights. As mentioned, it is clear that such a duty arises in cases of suspected unlawful killing or serious ill-treatment. Two main points, however, are in dispute. One is whether, and if so when, the duty to investigate allegations of a violation of article 3 applies in cases where the nature of the allegation is not that the claimant was tortured or mistreated by British forces but that he was handed over to United States or Iraqi authorities in circumstances where there was allegedly a real risk that they would subject the claimant to torture or mistreatment. The claimants contend that the investigative duty of the UK extends to such ``handover'' cases but the Secretary of State contests this. Issues (2) to (4) are aimed at resolving these questions. The second main disputed point is whether, and if so when, there is a duty to investigate allegations that the claimant was unlawfully detained in violation of article 5. These questions are the subject of issues (5) to (7A).
The remaining three preliminary issues raise some further questions about the scope of the investigative duty under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, including questions about the impact (if any) on that duty of the UK's international obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture (``UNCAT'').
Before addressing the preliminary issues, I will first outline the relevant background.
Phases of British military involvement in Iraq
The British military involvement in Iraq can be divided into three periods, which I will refer to as (i) the ``invasion'' period, (ii) the ``occupation'' period and (iii) the ``post-occupation'' period. The answers to some of the preliminary issues may differ as between these different periods.
The invasion period
On 20 March 2003 a coalition of armed forces led by the United States and including a large force from the UK invaded Iraq. By 5 April 2003 British troops had captured Basra and by 9 April 2003 US troops had gained control of Baghdad. Major combat operations in Iraq were formally declared complete on 1 May 2003.
The occupation period
Following the completion of major combat operations, the United States and the United Kingdom became occupying powers in Iraq within the meaning of article 42 of the Hague Regulations. With their coalition partners they created the Coalition Provisional Authority (``CPA'') in order to exercise powers of government in Iraq on a temporary basis until a new Iraqi government could be established.
The post-occupation period
On 28 June 2004 sovereign authority was transferred from the CPA to a new Iraqi government. British forces remained in Iraq as part of a Multi National Force (``MNF'') established pursuant to requests from the Iraqi government and resolutions of the UN Security Council to assist the Iraqi government in maintaining law and order. The role of the MNF was described as follows in a letter dated 5 June 2004 written to the President of the UN Security Council by the US Secretary of State:
``Under the agreed arrangement, the MNF stands ready to continue to undertake a broad range of tasks to contribute to the maintenance of security and to ensure force protection. These include activities necessary to counter ongoing security threats posed by forces seeking to influence Iraq's political future through violence. This will include combat operations against members of these groups, internment where this is necessary for imperative reasons of security, and the continued search for and securing of weapons that threaten Iraq's security. ...''
Successive resolutions of the UN Security Council authorised the MNF to ``take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq'' in accordance with this arrangement. The UN mandate for the MNF expired on 31 December 2008 though it was not until sometime in 2009 that British forces withdrew from Iraq.
The duty of the state to investigate...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL