Fox v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2021] IESC 61 (14 September 2021)

Fox v The Minister for Justice (Approved) [2021] IESC 61 (14 September 2021)

The Supreme Court held that the ECHR, including Article 2, only became part of Irish domestic law on 31 December 2003 with the coming into force of the 2003 Act, which is not retrospective. Therefore, no procedural obligation to investigate under Article 2 arises in respect of the murder of Mr. Ludlow, which occurred in 1976. The Court further held that the constitutional right to life under Article 40.3 does not impose an obligation to investigate that is coterminous with Article 2 ECHR, and there is no constitutional basis to require the establishment of the Commissions of Investigation sought by Mr. Fox. No new evidence or procedural steps have arisen to revive any such obligation.

Citation
[2021] IESC 61
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Thomas Fox; Defendants/respondents: The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal and High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Right to Life, Obligation to Investigate Unlawful Deaths, European Convention on Human Rights, Retrospective Application of Law, Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Right to Life Obligation to Investigate Unlawful Deaths European Convention on Human Rights Retrospective Application of Law Legitimate Expectation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Fox

Plaintiff/appellant

The Minister for Justice and Equality, Ireland and the Attorney General

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 2 ECHR imposes a procedural obligation on the State to investigate a death occurring before the ECHR was incorporated into Irish law by the 2003 Act
  2. 2 Whether the right to life under Article 40.3 of the Constitution imposes a similar or coterminous obligation to investigate
  3. 3 Whether the State is obliged to establish Commissions of Investigation into Garda handling of the Ludlow murder

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the ECHR, including Article 2, only became part of Irish domestic law on 31 December 2003 with the coming into force of the 2003 Act, which is not retrospective. Therefore, no procedural obligation to investigate under Article 2 arises in respect of the murder of Mr. Ludlow, which occurred in 1976. The Court further held that the constitutional right to life under Article 40.3 does not impose an obligation to investigate that is coterminous with Article 2 ECHR, and there is no constitutional basis to require the establishment of the Commissions of Investigation sought by Mr. Fox. No new evidence or procedural steps have arisen to revive any such obligation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No obligation on the State to establish the Commissions of Investigation sought by the appellant
  • No declaration of breach of Article 2 ECHR or Article 40.3 of the Constitution