Officer L & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NICA 8 (05 February 2007)

Officer L & Ors, Re Application for Judicial Review [2007] NICA 8 (05 February 2007)

The Inquiry panel erred in law by requiring an increased risk to life from giving evidence openly, rather than simply determining whether there was a real risk to life as required by Article 2 ECHR. The correct test is whether the requirement to give evidence under their own names and unscreened gives rise to a real risk to life, not whether it increases an existing risk. The appeal is dismissed and the panel's decision is quashed.

Citation
[2007] NICA 8
Parties
Applicants/appellants: Officer L and Others; Respondents: Panel Members of the Inquiry into the death of Robert Hamill
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Granting Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; panel's decision quashed
Legal Topics
Article 2 ECHR (right to Life), Anonymity of Witnesses, Public Inquiries, Risk Assessment, Procedural Fairness
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Article 2 ECHR (right to Life) Anonymity of Witnesses Public Inquiries Risk Assessment Procedural Fairness

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Officer L and Others

Applicants/appellants

Panel Members of the Inquiry into the death of Robert Hamill

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Granting Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inquiry panel applied the correct legal test under Article 2 ECHR in refusing anonymity to police witnesses
  2. 2 Whether the panel was required to consider subjective fears and their objective justification
  3. 3 Whether a balancing exercise is required under Article 2 ECHR or only at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The Inquiry panel erred in law by requiring an increased risk to life from giving evidence openly, rather than simply determining whether there was a real risk to life as required by Article 2 ECHR. The correct test is whether the requirement to give evidence under their own names and unscreened gives rise to a real risk to life, not whether it increases an existing risk. The appeal is dismissed and the panel's decision is quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; panel's decision quashed

Orders

  • The decision of the Inquiry panel is quashed.
  • The panel must reconsider whether Article 2 rights are engaged by determining if there is a real risk to life from giving evidence openly, not whether the risk is increased.