PATRICIA DEVALL & Anor v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

PATRICIA DEVALL & Anor v MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

The Court held that the claims under Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR should not be struck out or dismissed at this stage. The boundaries of the operational duty under Article 2 are still evolving, and there is a properly arguable case that the Defendant assumed responsibility for the welfare of the deceased and that there was a real and immediate risk to his life of which the Defendant knew or ought to have known. The systemic duty claim should also proceed to trial. The Article 8 claim should not be struck out where the Article 2 claim is adjudged to have real prospects of success. The Judge below was correct to refuse to strike out or dismiss the claims.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out/dismiss Claim
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, Strike Out Applications, Assumption of Responsibility, State Liability for Deaths in Approved Premises
Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private and Family Life) Systemic and Operational Duties Strike Out Applications Assumption of Responsibility State Liability for Deaths in Approved Premises

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Devall

Claimant/respondent

Janine Corcoran

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Justice

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out/dismiss Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant owed systemic and operational duties under Article 2 ECHR to the deceased while residing in Approved Premises
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant breached those duties, materially contributing to the death
  3. 3 Whether the facts disclose an arguable claim under Article 8 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the claims under Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR should not be struck out or dismissed at this stage. The boundaries of the operational duty under Article 2 are still evolving, and there is a properly arguable case that the Defendant assumed responsibility for the welfare of the deceased and that there was a real and immediate risk to his life of which the Defendant knew or ought to have known. The systemic duty claim should also proceed to trial. The Article 8 claim should not be struck out where the Article 2 claim is adjudged to have real prospects of success. The Judge below was correct to refuse to strike out or dismiss the claims.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims under Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR to proceed to trial
  • Refusal to strike out or dismiss the claims affirmed