Devall & Anor v Ministry of Justice [2022] EWHC 1608 (QB) (23 June 2022)

Devall & Anor v Ministry of Justice [2022] EWHC 1608 (QB) (23 June 2022)

The appeal was dismissed because the claims under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR were properly arguable on the pleaded facts and should proceed to trial. The law in this area is evolving, and the boundaries of the State's operational duty under Article 2 are not fixed. There was a real prospect of establishing that the Defendant assumed responsibility for Mr Rye's welfare and that the pleaded facts disclosed a real and immediate risk to life. The systemic and operational duty claims should not be summarily dismissed, nor should the Article 8 claim be struck out while Article 2 remains arguable.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1608 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Patricia Devall; Claimant/respondent: Janine Corcoran; Defendant/appellant: Ministry of Justice
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out/dismiss Claim at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life), Systemic and Operational Duties, State Assumption of Responsibility, Summary Judgment/strike Out, Approved Premises, Causation in Human Rights Claims
Human Rights Law Public Law Civil Procedure Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Systemic and Operational Duties State Assumption of Responsibility Summary Judgment/strike Out +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Devall

Claimant/respondent

Janine Corcoran

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Justice

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out/dismiss Claim at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Ministry of Justice owed systemic and/or operational duties under Article 2 ECHR to Billy Rye while residing at Approved Premises
  2. 2 Whether the facts pleaded disclosed a real and immediate risk to life of which the Defendant knew or ought to have known
  3. 3 Whether the claim under Article 8 ECHR is maintainable on the same facts as Article 2

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claims under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR were properly arguable on the pleaded facts and should proceed to trial. The law in this area is evolving, and the boundaries of the State's operational duty under Article 2 are not fixed. There was a real prospect of establishing that the Defendant assumed responsibility for Mr Rye's welfare and that the pleaded facts disclosed a real and immediate risk to life. The systemic and operational duty claims should not be summarily dismissed, nor should the Article 8 claim be struck out while Article 2 remains arguable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR to proceed to trial
  • Refusal to strike out or dismiss the claim at first instance upheld