CASE OF HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 6;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The facts of the case , in particular concerning what happened when PERSON was shot on DATE , are in dispute between the parties .

On DATE , the applicant ’s son , PERSON , aged DATE , was shot and killed in GPE by an officer of ORG ( the ORG ) , later identified as PERSON

The official statement issued by the ORG to the media indicated that an ORG unit had pursued a car on FAC and brought it to a halt . On stopping the car , the officers had fired several shots at the driver , fatally wounding him a short distance from where his car had been abandoned . No guns , ammunition , explosives , masks or gloves had been found in the car and the driver , PERSON , had been unarmed .

NORP The post mortem report found CARDINAL entry wounds in PERSON back and one in the back of the left arm , and noted a bruise on the face and shin . It concluded that he had been struck by CARDINAL bullets which had come from behind and to the left . There was nothing to indicate the range .

The shooting was witnessed by CARDINAL civilians , who on DATE made statements to ORG ( ORG ) , an independent non - governmental human rights organisation based in GPE . The CARDINAL witnesses gave the following account of the shooting , which is not accepted by the Government .

The CARDINAL civilians were walking together along FAC and passed PERSON station at TIME . They noticed QUANTITY unmarked police cars parked with their headlights dimmed , each containing CARDINAL ORG officers : CARDINAL car was red and the second dark blue / green .

As they proceeded along the road , they heard a crash behind them and turned to see on the opposite side of the road the red police car pulling alongside a car ( PERSON ) and ramming it up onto the footpath . The red police car came to a halt in front of the car while the dark blue / green police car pulled up behind hitting it in the rear . The CARDINAL civilians stopped and had an unobstructed view across the road . PERSON emerged from the immobilised car , and appeared shaken . He staggered across the road towards the QUANTITY men followed by QUANTITY police officers . As PERSON reached the white line in the centre of the road , an officer QUANTITY away fired a number of shots . The civilians heard no warning shout or challenge given by any of the officers and saw nothing in PERSON hands or anything threatening in his actions . Some of the shots struck PERSON . He staggered a little further then turned to face the police who , when they caught up with him , verbally abused him and pushed his face into the ground where he was kicked and searched . The police carried out a search of the car .

The CARDINAL witnesses followed the ambulance which took PERSON to hospital where they stated that they were subjected to hostile and threatening remarks by members of the security forces .

According to the applicant , prior to the release of the official ORG statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , there were a number of unofficial reports widely circulated in the media to the effect that gloves , masks , guns and bombs had been found in the car , and CARDINAL report to the effect that PERSON was a former NORP prisoner who had been charged in DATE with possession of explosives . This information was not correct . PERSON did however receive an IRA funeral and , in ORG , he was described as a Volunteer of ORG of the IRA and it was said that he had died on active service .

An official ORG statement stated that a deputy superintendent of the ORG from outside GPE would investigate the shooting . In a later statement , it was announced that ORG ( the ORG ) would supervise the ORG investigation .

On DATE , at TIME , a detective chief inspector of the ORG criminal investigation department interviewed ORG , in the presence of his solicitor and a representative of the ORG . Sergeant A , member of an HMSU unit , stated as follows .

He had been at a briefing at TIME DATE before concerning reports of a planned distribution of kit and munitions , including weapons , explosives and mortars , by ORG in GPE . A surveillance operation was to be mounted and he was in charge of the teams on the ground which were going to intervene if possible to intercept the munitions . He was carrying a FAC and Wesson CARDINAL pistol and a MPCARDINAL ORG . At CARDINAL - CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. , following reports of a car acting suspiciously at FAC leisure centre , he and his teams left GPE police station to wait at NORP police station . They heard reports there of a build up of activity at the back of QUANTITY houses in GPE street , which were under surveillance . The red car from the leisure centre arrived in GPE street . Sergeant A thought that this was possibly the re - supply of terrorist equipment taking place . He was told by radio to gather his people together – car crews with call signs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . When the red Orion left GPE street , he and his crews left the police station but were called back almost immediately to allow the red Orion to make its run . A red ORG left GPE street and they were told to allow that to run . News arrived that the red Orion had come back to GPE street . Sergeant A was told on the radio that the next time the red Orion came out they were to intercept it . He split his crews in CARDINAL , his own team ( call signs CARDINAL and DATE ) to approach from the city side and the crews with call signs CARDINAL and DATE to approach from the country side .

When the red Orion came past the QUANTITY police cars , Sergeant A saw that there was one driver . They pulled out behind it . His driver flashed his lights at it . They switched on their police klaxon but had no blue flashing light on the car and none of them were wearing their police caps . Sergeant A ’s car drew level with the Orion and he signalled for it to pull over . The Orion slowed falling behind and then shot past on the passenger side , accelerating down FAC in the direction of the city . Sergeant A told his driver to pursue him and force him off the road . The car possibly reached the speed of CARDINAL , QUANTITY at the fastest . They were in a built up area , in traffic so it was difficult to judge . Their klaxon was going throughout . They drew parallel with the red Orion and nudged it once . The impact was hard enough to force the Orion partly up on the pavement and stop it . Sergeant A ’s own car stopped partly on the pavement in front of the Orion . The lock of his door had broken on the impact . He burst out of the door onto the pavement moving towards the Orion . He saw the driver running across the road from left to right at an angle away from him . He was looking over his right shoulder in Sergeant A ’s direction as he ran . Sergeant A said that he called out “ Police . Halt . ” or “ Halt . Police . ”

The driver of the ORG turned around towards him . He could not see the man ’s hands which were below his waist . His vision was either obscured by the roof of the police car in front of him or the arrival of the other black car ( crew CARDINAL ) on the scene . As he could not see the man ’s hands , he thought that his own life or the life of his own driver might be at risk . He feared the man was armed as he had spun round so quickly . He fired a short burst from his MPCARDINAL at the trunk of the man . When he made the split second decision to fire , the man was facing him but he could not say whether he had turned or moved in some other way . He was aware of other police officers shouting . He ran towards the driver who ran towards the footpath on the far side of the road . Constable F was shouting at him to get down on his knees . The driver fell flat , toppling over . It was realised at that stage that he was seriously injured .

Sergeant A quickly searched the car , while other security force personnel administered first aid to the driver . Either base , or he himself , suggested that the police officers move to GPE street . The military took over the first aid . He had directed most of the police officers to leave the scene as soon as they had arrived , including crew CARDINAL in their car . He did not know that car CARDINAL had come into contact with the Orion or the deceased . He arrived back at the station at CARDINAL to TIME There was a TIME debriefing in which he participated . He also discussed the matter casually with the others who were there . He was instructed to hand in his weapon at about that time .

On DATE , a detective inspector carried out a second interview of ORG , in the presence of his solicitor . Further questions were put about his position and actions at the time of the shooting . He recalled that he had had a clear view of the deceased from the waist up . When the deceased turned to face him , he did not make any movements towards him . His arms remained down though . When asked to explain precisely why he had considered that his life was in danger , given that he could not confirm that the deceased was armed , PERSON replied that it had been a prolonged operation lasting TIME involving serious terrorist activity . The red Orion had reacted in a very aggressive manner in driving at excessive speed on a busy road . When the Orion was stopped , the driver ran away and when he was ordered to stop , he turned towards the Sergeant in what the Sergeant interpreted as an aggressive manner . His arms were down and his hands out of sight . In that short space of time , he formed the opinion that the deceased was a threat to his life . The man ’s actions had not been of someone about to surrender . He was certain that there were no viable alternatives to discharging his own weapon .

Forensic examinations of the cars involved in the incident were carried out . ORG were conducted with the other police officers and army personnel involved in the incident .

According to the statements of police officers D , E and F in the car call sign CARDINAL , they had been pursuing the red Orion car close behind the red police ORG in which ORG was driving . When the Orion stopped , their car pulled up behind . As they were stopping , the driver was running from the car and either he ran into them or their car struck him , clipping him on the right thigh . The driver span round towards call sign CARDINAL . At that point , there was a short burst of gunfire . Their car had also at some point made contact with the red Orion in the rear . Only officer D heard shouting coming from the call sign CARDINAL direction before the shooting . Shortly after moving their car to facilitate the flow of traffic , they had been directed to GPE street .

In his statement of DATE , ORG , from the car call sign DATE , stated that on arrival at the scene he had instructed car CARDINAL to be moved to facilitate the movement of a bus which had stopped very close to the injured man . He was not aware that car CARDINAL might have struck the red Orion car or the deceased . The car was only moved back slightly and he was not involved in directing its complete removal from the scene .

Inspector M gave a statement on DATE that , on being satisfied that the injured man was receiving first aid and that the red Orion had been secured , he gave directions for all the HMSU police teams to go to GPE street for searches . Some sort of device has been located there .

During the investigation , appeals were made by the police in newspapers and broadcast media for potential eyewitnesses to come forward . A number of civilians made statements to the police and subsequently gave evidence at the inquest . In DATE , the ORG concluded its inquiry . Its report on the investigation was submitted to ORG ( the ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE , the ORG wrote to the applicant ’s family expressing the view that the ORG report of CARDINAL DATE concerning the criminal investigation into the shooting was satisfactory . On DATE , the ORG wrote to the applicant advising him that the papers had been sent to the ORG . The applicant and his family were not however provided with any indication as to the nature of the ORG ’s findings .

On DATE , the ORG ’s department issued to the Chief Constable of the ORG a direction of “ no prosecution ” in respect of the fatal shooting of PERSON . It had been concluded that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the prosecution of any person .

On DATE , having considered a submission by the ORG , the ORG notified the ORG that the direction of “ no prosecution ” should stand .

On DATE , the ORG wrote to the applicant to inform him that the report on the shooting had been sent to the ORG .

On DATE , the ORG wrote to the applicant to inform him that after careful scrutiny of all the details it was of the opinion that the evidence was insufficient to warrant the preferment of disciplinary charges against the police officers concerned .

On DATE , the ORG notified the Coroner that the ORG had directed “ no prosecution ” . Following that decision , the Coroner decided to hold an inquest .

On DATE , the Coroner received the case papers from the ORG .

On or CARDINAL DATE , the Coroner wrote to interested parties informing them that the inquest would begin on DATE .

Prior to the commencement of the inquest , the Secretary of ORG issued a certificate in which he identified information whose disclosure at the inquest he believed would be contrary to the public interest on grounds of national security , and made an application that the identities of certain military witnesses be withheld and that they should give their evidence from behind a screen .

On DATE , the Coroner held a preliminary hearing at which he decided to :

( a ) protect certain categories of information from disclosure on the grounds of national security ;

( b ) protect the identity of CARDINAL military witnesses , Soldiers V , W and X by withholding their names and screening them from all except the Coroner , the jury and the legal representatives of the interested parties ; and

( c ) protect the identity of certain ORG officers , including ORG ( the officer who fired the shots which killed PERSON ) by withholding their names .

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG for GPE issued a certificate in which he identified information whose disclosure at the inquest he believed would be contrary to the public interest as compromising the integrity of ORG intelligence operations .

On DATE , the Coroner ’s inquest commenced . The applicant and his family were represented by a solicitor and counsel . The ORG were represented . The Coroner sat for DATE , hearing evidence from CARDINAL witnesses , including the applicant , CARDINAL civilians , Soldiers V , W and GPE , QUANTITY police officers and a pathologist . These witnesses were subject to cross - examination . Sergeant A had informed the Coroner that he would not appear .

On or DATE , the ORG provided the Coroner with a statement which they had received from another civilian witness , a driver of a black taxi who had been at the scene .

On DATE , the Coroner rejected the request by the applicant ’s counsel to withdraw the protection of the identities of the ORG witnesses .

The proceedings were adjourned on DATE , at the request of PERSON family , to enable the ORG , in the light of new evidence from the taxi driver , to reconsider the decision whether or not to bring a prosecution . The Coroner wrote to the ORG informing him that new evidence had come to light which should be considered .

On DATE , the ORG decided that the evidence remained insufficient to warrant the prosecution of any person in relation to PERSON death . He requested that any further evidence adduced at the inquest relevant to his functions be reported to him .

On DATE , the applicant ’s legal representatives were informed by the ORG that his decision not to bring a prosecution still stood .

On DATE , the applicant ’s legal representatives made an application for the Coroner to discharge himself from the Inquest on the grounds that he was not conducting the inquest fairly . The ORG refused the application .

On DATE , the Coroner wrote to the interested parties informing them that the inquest would resume on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant ’s legal representatives commenced judicial review proceedings seeking declarations that certain rulings given by the Coroner in the course of the inquest were wrong in law . Leave was granted on DATE . The applicant sought orders of certiorari to quash inter alia ( a ) the Coroner ’s refusal to give the next of kin access to the statements of the witnesses before they gave evidence at the inquest and ( b ) the decision of the Coroner to grant anonymity to ORG witnesses . Legal aid was granted to the applicant for this purpose . The Coroner adjourned the inquest pending these proceedings .

Leave was granted to bring judicial review proceedings against the Coroner on DATE .

The judicial review application was heard on CARDINAL and DATE . By judgment of DATE , Lord Justice PERSON refused the applicant ’s claims . In doing so he had regard to the inquisitorial nature of inquest proceedings . He referred to the remarks of PERSON in Ex parte PERSON :

“ A coroner ’s inquest is an inquisitorial procedure with a very limited objective indeed . The objective is set out in rule CARDINAL of LAW DATE . It is limited to ascertaining the following matters : who the deceased was ; how , when and where the deceased came by his death . There is a further specific limitation provided by LAW DATE . These provide by rule CARDINAL that no verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of criminal liability on the part of a named person or of civil liability .

It is quite true that the coroner may allow interested parties to examine a witness called by the coroner . But that must be for the purpose of assisting in establishing the matters which the inquest is directed to determine . It is not intended by rule CARDINAL to widen the coroner ’s inquest into adversarial fields of conflict . ”

Lord Justice PERSON also referred to the statutory background governing the procedure at inquest : Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( GPE ) DATE providing that the jury shall give their verdict in the form prescribed by rules ,

“ setting forth , so far as such particulars have been proved to them , who the deceased person was and how , when and where he came to his death . ”

and LAW of ORG and Procedure ) Rules DATE providing :

“ neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on questions of criminal or civil liability ... ”

On DATE , the applicant appealed against the decision of Lord Justice PERSON . The appeal was dismissed by ORG of GPE on DATE . The applicant ’s application for leave to appeal to ORG was refused on DATE . ORG also refused leave on DATE .

The inquest was due to recommence on DATE . However , it was adjourned on DATE by the Coroner , after consultation with the parties , pending the outcome of a judicial review application in the High Court concerning the availability of legal aid for legal representation for the family of the deceased at inquests .

On DATE , final judgment was given in the case of PERSON v. the Secretary of ORG and ORG , in which a challenge concerning the unavailability of legal aid for inquests was dismissed .

DATE . On DATE , the Coroner informed the interested parties that he intended to resume the inquest on DATE .

On DATE , the Coroner adjourned the inquest pending the applicant ’s application for the disclosure of documents by the Chief Constable of the ORG in the wake of ORG issued on DATE on deaths in police custody which recommended , inter alia , that material supplied by the police to the Coroner should be made available to the families of deceased persons ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , the applicant was informed that the Chief Constable would provide copies of the statements of the witnesses who were to appear at the inquest and copies of any statements which the Coroner proposed to read out .

On DATE , the applicant was granted leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the Chief Constable , challenging his decision not to provide further documents to the applicant .

When the inquest resumed , the Coroner proposed to call , in addition to the witnesses who gave evidence in DATE , CARDINAL police officers and Soldier Y involved in the anti - terrorist operation in which PERSON died , forensic experts and QUANTITY police officers involved in the ORG investigation into the shooting .

On a date unspecified DATE and DATE , the applicant was provided with the witness statements of persons whom the Coroner has decided should be called to give evidence at the inquest .

The applicant was granted legal aid to pursue a civil action for compensation in ORG . On DATE , the applicant instituted civil proceedings , alleging death by wrongful act .

On DATE , the applicant served a statement of claim in the civil proceedings . On DATE ORG served their defence , together with a request for further and better particulars of the statement of claim . The applicant did not reply to this request until a date unspecified subsequent to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , the Crown Solicitor wrote to the applicant seeking consent to a remittal of the civil action to trial .

The applicant stated that the case is currently at the discovery stage but that this can not be concluded until the inquest is terminated .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) DATE provides inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime , or in effecting the arrest or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large . ”

Self - defence or the defence of others is contained within the concept of the prevention of crime ( see e.g. Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law ) .

The conduct of inquests in GPE is governed by LAW ( GPE ) DATE and ORG and Procedure ) Rules ( GPE ) DATE . These provide the framework for a procedure within which deaths by violence or in suspicious circumstances are notified to the Coroner , who then has the power to hold an inquest , with or without a jury , for the purpose of ascertaining , with the assistance as appropriate of the evidence of witnesses and reports , inter alia , of post mortem and forensic examinations , who the deceased was and how , when and where he died .

Pursuant to LAW , every medical practitioner , registrar of deaths or funeral undertaker who has reason to believe a person died directly or indirectly by violence is under an obligation to inform the Coroner ( section CARDINAL ) . Every medical practitioner who performs a post mortem examination has to notify the Coroner of the result in writing ( section CARDINAL ) . Whenever a dead body is found , or an unexplained death or death in suspicious circumstances occurs , the police of that district are required to give notice to the Coroner ( section CARDINAL) .

Rules CARDINAL of the Coroners Rules give power to the Coroner to adjourn an inquest where a person may be or has been charged with murder or other specified criminal offences in relation to the deceased .

Where the Coroner decides to hold an inquest with a jury , persons are called from the Jury List , compiled by random computer selection from the electoral register for the district on the same basis as in criminal trials .

The matters in issue at an inquest are governed by LAW and QUANTITY of LAW :

“ CARDINAL . The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following matters , namely : -

( a ) who the deceased was ;

( b ) how , when and where the deceased came by his death ;

( c ) the particulars for the time being required by ORG ) Order DATE to be registered concerning his death .

Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on questions of criminal or civil liability or on any matters other than those referred to in DATE foregoing Rule . ”

The forms of verdict used in GPE accord with this recommendation , recording the name and other particulars of the deceased , a statement of the cause of death ( e.g. bullet wounds ) and findings as to when and where the deceased met his death . In GPE and GPE , the form of verdict appended to the English Coroners Rules contains a section marked “ conclusions of the jury / coroner as to the death ” in which conclusions such as “ lawfully killed ” or “ killed unlawfully ” are inserted . These findings involve expressing an opinion on criminal liability in that they involve a finding as to whether the death resulted from a criminal act , but no finding is made that any identified person was criminally liable . The jury in GPE and GPE may also append recommendations to their verdict .

NORP However , in GPE , the Coroner is under a duty ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prosecution of Offences Order ( GPE ) DATE ) to furnish a written report to the ORG where the circumstances of any death appear to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed .

Until recently , legal aid was not available for inquests as they did not involve the determination of civil liabilities or criminal charges . Legislation which would have provided for legal aid at the hearing of inquests ( ORG , Advice and Assistance ( Northern Ireland ) Order DATE , Schedule CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL ) has not been brought into force . However , on DATE , the Lord Chancellor announced the establishment of an Extra - Statutory Ex Gratia Scheme to make public funding available for representation for proceedings before Coroners in exceptional inquests in GPE . In DATE , he published for consultation the criteria to be used in deciding whether applications for representation at inquests should receive public funding . This included inter alia consideration of financial eligibility , whether an effective investigation by the ORG was needed and whether the inquest was the only way to conduct it , whether the applicant required representation to be able to participate effectively in the inquest and whether the applicant had a sufficiently close relationship to the deceased .

DATE . The Coroner enjoys the power to summon witnesses who he thinks it necessary to attend the inquest ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) and he may allow any interested person to examine a witness ( Rule CARDINAL ) . In both GPE and GPE and GPE , a witness is entitled to rely on the privilege against self - incrimination . In GPE , this privilege is reinforced by Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) which provides that a person suspected of causing the death may not be compelled to give evidence at the inquest .

In relation to both documentary evidence and the oral evidence of witnesses , inquests , like criminal trials , are subject to the law of public interest immunity , which recognises and gives effect to the public interest , such as national security , in the non - disclosure of certain information or certain documents or classes of document . A claim of public interest immunity must be supported by a certificate .

Rules DATE and DATE ( see above ) follow from the recommendation of ORG :

“ ... the function of an inquest should be simply to seek out and record as many of the facts concerning the death as the public interest requires , without deducing from those facts any determination of blame ... In many cases , perhaps the majority , the facts themselves will demonstrate quite clearly whether anyone bears any responsibility for the death ; there is a difference between a form of proceeding which affords to others the opportunity to judge an issue and CARDINAL which appears to judge the issue itself . ”

Domestic courts have made , inter alia , the following comments :

“ ... It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died , which might raise general and far - reaching issues , but ‘ how ... the deceased came by his ORG , a far more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death .

... [ previous judgments ] make it clear that when ORG stated that one of the purposes of an inquest is ‘ To allay rumours or suspicions’ this purpose should be confined to allaying rumours and suspicions of how the deceased came by his death and not to allaying rumours or suspicions about the broad circumstances in which the deceased came by his death . ” ( Sir PERSON , ORG , NORP v the Coroner for GPE and GPE ex parte PERSON , DATE , unreported )

“ The cases establish that although the word ‘ how’ is to be widely interpreted , it means ‘ by what ORG rather than in what broad circumstances ... In short , the inquiry must focus on matters directly causative of death and must , indeed , be confined to those matters alone ... ” ( ORG , ORG , NORP v. Coroner for LOC of GPE , ex parte PERSON and others , ( DATE ) CARDINAL JP CARDINAL )

“ ... it should not be forgotten that an inquest is a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt . The procedure and rules of evidence which are suitable for CARDINAL are unsuitable for the other . In an inquest it should never be forgotten that there are no parties , no indictment , there is no prosecution , there is no defence , there is no trial , simply an attempt to establish the facts . It is an inquisitorial process , a process of investigation quite unlike a trial ...

It is well recognised that a purpose of an inquest is that rumour may be allayed . But that does not mean it is the duty of the Coroner to investigate at an inquest every rumour or allegation that may be brought to his attention . It is ... his duty to discharge his statutory role - the scope of his enquiry must not be allowed to drift into the uncharted seas of rumour and allegation . He will proceed safely and properly if he investigates the facts which it appears are relevant to the statutory issues before him . ” ( Lord Lane , ORG , R v. GPE ex parte PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL SJ CARDINAL )

There was no requirement prior to DATE for the families at inquests to receive copies of the written statements or documents submitted to the Coroner during the inquest . Coroners generally adopted the practice of disclosing the statements or documents during the inquest proceedings , as the relevant witness came forward to give evidence .

Following the recommendation of ORG No . CARDINAL ( concerning deaths in custody or deaths resulting from the actions of a police officer in purported execution of his duty ) advised Chief Constables of police forces in GPE and GPE to make arrangements in such cases for the pre - inquest disclosure of documentary evidence to interested parties . This was to “ help provide reassurance to the family of the deceased and other interested persons that a full and open police investigation has been conducted , and that they and their legal representatives will not be disadvantaged at the inquest ” . Such disclosure was recommended to take place DATE before the inquest .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG stated :

“ The courts have established that statements taken by the police and other documentary material produced by the police during the investigation of a death in police custody are the property of the force commissioning the investigation . The Coroner has no power to order the pre - inquest disclosure of such material ... Disclosure will therefore be on a voluntary basis . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL listed some kinds of material which require particular consideration before being disclosed , for example :

– where disclosure of documents might have a prejudicial effect on possible subsequent proceedings ( criminal , civil or disciplinary ) ;

– where the material concerns sensitive or personal information about the deceased or unsubstantiated allegations which might cause distress to the family ; and

– personal information about third parties not material to the inquest .

Paragraph CARDINAL envisaged that there would be non - disclosure of the investigating officer ’s report although it might be possible to disclose it in those cases which the Chief Constable considered appropriate .

NORP The police complaints procedure was governed at the relevant time by the Police ( GPE ) Order DATE ( the DATE Order ) . This replaced ORG , which had been set up in DATE , by ORG ( the ORG ) . The ORG has been replaced from DATE with ORG for GPE appointed under LAW Act DATE .

DATE . The ORG was an independent body , consisting of a chairman , CARDINAL deputy chairmen and CARDINAL other members . Where a complaint against the police was being investigated by a police officer or where the Chief Constable or Secretary of ORG considered that a criminal offence might have been committed by a police officer , the case was referred to the ORG .

The ORG was required under LAW to supervise the investigation of any complaint alleging that the conduct of a ORG officer had resulted in death or serious injury . Its approval was required of the appointment of the police officer to conduct the investigation and it could require the investigating officer to be replaced ( LAW . A report by the investigating officer was submitted to the ORG concerning supervised investigations at the same time as to the Chief Constable . Pursuant to LAW , the ORG issued a statement whether the investigation had been conducted to its satisfaction and , if not , specifying any respect in which it had not been so conducted .

The Chief Constable was required LAW to determine whether the report indicated that a criminal offence had been committed by a member of the police force . If he so decided and considered that the officer ought to be charged , he was required to send a copy of the report to the ORG . If the ORG decided not to prefer criminal charges , the Chief Constable was required to send a memorandum to the ORG indicating whether he intended to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officer ( Article CARDINAL ) ) save where disciplinary proceedings had been brought and the police officer had admitted the charges ( Article CARDINAL ) ) . Where the Chief Constable considered that a criminal offence had been committed but that the offence was not such that the police officer should be charged or where he considered that no criminal offence had been committed , he was required to send a memorandum indicating whether he intended to bring disciplinary charges and , if not , his reasons for not proposing to do so ( Article CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

If the ORG considered that a police officer subject to investigation ought to be charged with a criminal offence , it could direct the Chief Constable to send the ORG a copy of the report on that investigation ( LAW ) . It could also recommend or direct the Chief Constable to prefer such disciplinary charges as the ORG specified ( LAW ) ) .

NORP The Director of Public Prosecutions ( the ORG ) , appointed pursuant to ORG ( GPE ) DATE ( the DATE Order ) is an independent officer with CARDINAL years’ experience of the practice of law in GPE who is appointed by the Attorney General and who holds office until retirement , subject only to dismissal for misconduct . His duties under LAW DATE Order are inter alia :

“ ( a ) to consider , or cause to be considered , with a view to his initiating or continuing in GPE any criminal proceedings or the bringing of any appeal or other proceedings in or in connection with any criminal cause or matter in GPE , any facts or information brought to his notice , whether by the Chief Constable acting in pursuance of Article PERSON ) of this Order or by the Attorney General or by any other authority or person ;

( b ) to examine or cause to be examined all documents that are required LAW CARDINAL of this Order to be transmitted or furnished to him and where it appears to him to be necessary or appropriate to do so to cause any matter arising thereon to be further investigated ;

( c ) where he thinks proper to initiate , undertake and carry on , on behalf of the ORG , proceedings for indictable offences and for such summary offences or classes of summary offences as he considers should be dealt with by him . ”

DATE LAW inter alia Coroners and the Chief Constable of the ORG to provide information to the ORG as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the circumstances of any death investigated or being investigated by a coroner appear to him to disclose that a criminal offence may have been committed he shall as soon as practicable furnish to the [ ORG ] a written report of those circumstances .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be the duty of the Chief Constable , from time to time , to furnish to the [ ORG ] facts and information with respect to -

( a ) indictable offences [ such as murder ] alleged to have been committed against the law of GPE ; ...

and at the request of the [ ORG ] , to ascertain and furnish to the [ ORG ] information regarding any matter which may appear to the [ ORG ] to require investigation on the ground that it may involve an offence against the law of GPE or information which may appear to the [ ORG ] to be necessary for the discharge of his functions under this Order . ”

According to the Government ’s observations submitted on DATE , it had been the practice of successive DPPs to refrain from giving reasons for decisions not to institute or proceed with criminal prosecutions other than in the most general terms . This practice was based upon the consideration that

( CARDINAL ) NORP if reason were given in one or more cases , they would be required to be given in all . Otherwise , erroneous conclusions might be drawn in relation to those cases where reasons were refused , involving either unjust implications regarding the guilt of some individuals or suspicions of malpractice ;

( CARDINAL ) the reason not to prosecute might often be the unavailability of a particular item of evidence essential to establish the case ( e.g. sudden death or flight of a witness or intimidation ) . To indicate such a factor as the sole reason for not prosecuting might lead to assumptions of guilt in the public estimation ;

( CARDINAL ) the publication of the reasons might cause pain or damage to persons other than the suspect ( e.g. the assessment of the credibility or mental condition of the victim or other witnesses ) ;

( CARDINAL ) in a substantial category of cases decisions not to prosecute were based on the ORG ’s assessment of the public interest . Where the sole reason not to prosecute was the age , mental or physical health of the suspect , publication would not be appropriate and could lead to unjust implications ;

( CARDINAL ) there might be considerations of national security which affected the safety of individuals ( e.g. where no prosecution could safely or fairly be brought without disclosing information which would be of assistance to terrorist organisations , would impair the effectiveness of the counter - terrorist operations of the security forces or endanger the lives of such personnel and their families or informants ) .

Decisions of the ORG not to prosecute have been subject to applications for judicial review in ORG .

In R v. ORG ex parte C ( DATE ) CARDINAL CAR , p. CARDINAL , Lord Justice PERSON held , concerning a decision of the ORG not to prosecute in an alleged case of buggery :

“ From all of those decisions it seems to me that in the context of the present case this court can be persuaded to act if and only if it is demonstrated to us that the Director of Public Prosecutions acting through ORG arrived at the decision not to prosecute :

( CARDINAL ) because of some unlawful policy ( such as the hypothetical decision in GPE not to prosecute where the value of goods stolen was below £ CARDINAL ) ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP because ORG failed to act in accordance with his own settled policy as set out in the code ; or

( CARDINAL ) because the decision was perverse . It was a decision at which no reasonable prosecutor could have arrived . ”

In the case of NORP v. the ORG and Others ex parte PERSON the ORG on DATE quashed a decision not to prosecute for alleged gross negligence causing a death in dock unloading on the basis that the reasons given by the ORG – that the evidence was not sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of satisfying a jury DATE required further explanation .

R v. ORG ex parte PERSON and PERSON ( decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) concerned the ORG ’s decision not to prosecute any prison officer for manslaughter in respect of the death of a prisoner , although the inquest jury had reached a verdict of unlawful death - there was evidence that prison officers had used a neck lock which was forbidden and dangerous . The ORG reviewing the case still concluded that the ORG would be unable to establish manslaughter from gross negligence . The Lord Chief Justice noted :

“ ORG makes clear that a decision by the Director not to prosecute is susceptible to judicial review : see , for example , NORP v. Director of Public Prosecutions , ex parte C [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr . App . PERSON . But , as the decided cases also make clear , the power of review is one to be sparingly exercised . The reasons for this are clear . The primary decision to prosecute or not to prosecute is entrusted by ORG to the Director as head of an independent , professional prosecuting service , answerable to the Attorney General in his role as guardian of the public interest , and to CARDINAL else . It makes no difference that in practice the decision will ordinarily be taken by a senior member of the ORG , as it was here , and not by the Director personally . In any borderline case the decision may be CARDINAL of acute difficulty , since while a defendant whom a jury would be likely to convict should properly be brought to justice and tried , a defendant whom a jury would be likely to acquit should not be subjected to the trauma inherent in a criminal trial . If , in a case such as the present , the Director ’s provisional decision is not to prosecute , that decision will be subject to review by Senior ORG Counsel who will exercise an independent professional judgment . The Director and his officials ( and Senior ORG Counsel when consulted ) will bring to their task of deciding whether to prosecute an experience and expertise which most courts called upon to review their decisions could not match . In most cases the decision will turn not on an analysis of the relevant legal principles but on the exercise of an informed judgment of how a case against a particular defendant , if brought , would be likely to fare in the context of a criminal trial before ( in a serious case such as this ) a jury . This exercise of judgment involves an assessment of the strength , by the end of the trial , of the evidence against the defendant and of the likely defences . It will often be impossible to stigmatise a judgment on such matters as wrong even if one disagrees with it . So the courts will not easily find that a decision not to prosecute is bad in law , on which basis alone the court is entitled to interfere . At the same time , the standard of review should not be set too high , since judicial review is the only means by which the citizen can seek redress against a decision not to prosecute and if the test were too exacting an effective remedy would be denied . ”

As regards whether the ORG had a duty to give reasons , the Lord Chief Justice said :

“ It is not contended that the Director is subject to an obligation to give reasons in every case in which he decides not to prosecute . Even in the small and very narrowly defined cases which meet PERSON conditions set out above , we do not understand domestic law or the jurisprudence of ORG to impose an absolute and unqualified obligation to give reasons for a decision not to prosecute . But the right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights . It is put at the forefront of the LAW . The power to derogate from it is very limited . The death of a person in the custody of the ORG must always arouse concern , as recognised by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) , ( CARDINAL)(b ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Coroner ’s Act DATE , and if the death resulted from violence inflicted by agents of the ORG that concern must be profound . The holding of an inquest in public by an independent judicial official , the coroner , in which interested parties are able to participate must in our view be regarded as a full and effective inquiry ( see ORG v. GPE [ DATE ] CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . Where such an inquest following a proper direction to the jury culminates in a lawful verdict of unlawful killing implicating a person who , although not named in the verdict , is clearly identified , who is living and whose whereabouts are known , the ordinary expectation would naturally be that a prosecution would follow . In the absence of compelling grounds for not giving reasons , we would expect the Director to give reasons in such a case : to meet the reasonable expectation of interested parties that either a prosecution would follow or a reasonable explanation for not prosecuting be given , to vindicate the Director ’s decision by showing that solid grounds exist for what might otherwise appear to be a surprising or even inexplicable decision and to meet ORG expectation that if a prosecution is not to follow a plausible explanation will be given . We would be very surprised if such a general practice were not welcome to Members of ORG whose constituents have died in such circumstances . We readily accept that such reasons would have to be drawn with care and skill so as to respect third party and public interests and avoid undue prejudice to those who would have no opportunity to defend themselves . We also accept that time and skill would be needed to prepare a summary which was reasonably brief but did not distort the true basis of the decision . But the number of cases which meet PERSON conditions is very small ( we were told that since DATE , including deaths in police custody , there have been CARDINAL such cases ) , and the time and expense involved could scarcely be greater than that involved in resisting an application for judicial review . In any event it would seem to be wrong in principle to require the citizen to make a complaint of unlawfulness against the Director in order to obtain a response which good administrative practice would in the ordinary course require . ”

On this basis , the court reviewed whether the reasons given by the ORG in that case were in accordance with the Code for ORG Prosecutors and capable of supporting a decision not to prosecute . It found that the decision had failed to take relevant matters into account and that this vitiated the decision not to prosecute . The decision was quashed and the ORG was required to reconsider his decision whether or not to prosecute .

In the Matter of an Application by PERSON for ORG , ORG in GPE on DATE considered the applicant ’s claim that the ORG had failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons for his decision not to prosecute any police officer concerned in the arrest during which he had suffered serious injuries and for which in civil proceedings he had obtained an award of damages against the police . It noted that there was no statutory obligation on the ORG under the DATE Order to give reasons and considered that no duty to give reasons could be implied . The fact that the ORG in GPE and GPE had in a number of cases furnished detailed reasons , whether from increasing concern for transparency or in the interests of the victim ’s families , was a matter for his discretion . It concluded on the basis of authorities that only in exceptional cases such as the PERSON case ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) would the ORG be required to furnish reasons to a victim for failing to prosecute and that review should be limited to where the principles identified by Lord Justice PERSON ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) were infringed . Notwithstanding the findings in the civil case , they were not persuaded that the ORG had acted in such an aberrant , inexplicable or irrational manner that the case cried out for reasons to be furnished as to why he had so acted .

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials ( ORG ) were adopted on DATE by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders .

Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG provides , inter alia , that the “ intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life ” .

Other relevant provisions read as follows :

Paragraph CARDINAL

“ ... law enforcement officials shall identify themselves as such and shall give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms , with sufficient time for the warnings to be observed , unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons , or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL

“ ... Governments and law enforcement agencies shall ensure that an effective review process is available and that independent administrative or prosecutorial authorities are in a position to exercise jurisdiction in appropriate circumstances . In cases of death and serious injury or other grave consequences , a detailed report shall be sent promptly to the competent authorities responsible for administrative review and judicial control . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL

“ Persons affected by the use of force and firearms or their legal representatives shall have access to an independent process , including a judicial process . In the event of the death of such persons , this provision shall apply to their dependants accordingly . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG on ORG , Arbitrary and Summary Executions , adopted on DATE by ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ( ORG Principles on ORG ) provides , inter alia , that :

“ There shall be a thorough , prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra legal , arbitrary and summary executions , including cases where complaints by relatives or other reliable reports suggest unnatural death in the above circumstances ... ”

Paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG on LAW contain a series of detailed requirements that should be observed by investigative procedures into such deaths .

Paragraph CARDINAL states , inter alia :

“ The investigative authority shall have the power to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry . Those persons conducting the inquiry ... shall also have the authority to oblige officials allegedly involved in any such executions to appear and testify ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL specifies :

“ In cases in which the established investigative procedures are inadequate because of a lack of expertise or impartiality , because of the importance of the matter or because of the apparent existence of a pattern of abuse , and in cases where there are complaints from the family of the victim about these inadequacies or other substantial reasons , Governments shall pursue investigations through an independent commission of inquiry or similar procedure . Members of such a commission shall be chosen for their recognised impartiality , competence and independence as individuals . In particular , they shall be independent of any institution , agency or person that may be the subject of the inquiry . The commission shall have the authority to obtain all information necessary to the inquiry and shall conduct the inquiry as provided in these principles . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL provides , inter alia :

“ Families of the deceased and their legal representatives shall be informed of , and have access to , any hearing as well as all information relevant to the investigation and shall be entitled to present other evidence ... ”

“ A written report shall be made within a reasonable time on the methods and findings of such investigations . The report shall be made public immediately and shall include the scope of the inquiry , procedures , methods used to evaluate evidence as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law ... ”

The “ LAW ” ( LAW for a legal investigation of extra - legal , arbitrary and summary executions , contained in ORG on ORG - legal , Arbitrary and Summary Executions ) provides , inter alia , in section B on the “ Purposes of an inquiry ” :

“ As set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the Principles , the broad purpose of an inquiry is to discover the truth about the events leading to the suspicious death of a victim . To fulfil that purpose , those conducting the inquiry shall , at a minimum , seek :

( a ) to identify the victim ;

( b ) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible ;

( c ) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death ;

( d ) to determine the cause , manner , location and time of death , as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death ;

( e ) to distinguish between natural death , accidental death , suicide and homicide ;

( f ) to identify and apprehend the person(s ) involved in the death ;

( g ) to bring the suspected perpetrator(s ) before a competent court established by law . ”

In section D , it is stated that “ In cases where government involvement is suspected , an objective and impartial investigation may not be possible unless a special commission of inquiry is established ... ” .

In the report on its visit to GPE and GPE from DATE , published on DATE , ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( the ORG ) reviewed the system of preferring criminal and disciplinary charges against police officers accused of ill - treating persons . It commented , inter alia , on the statistically few criminal prosecutions and disciplinary proceedings which were brought , and identified certain aspects of the procedures which cast doubt on their effectiveness :

The chief officers appointed officers from the same force to conduct the investigations , save in exceptional cases where they appointed an officer from another force , and the majority of investigations were unsupervised by ORG .

It stated at paragraph CARDINAL :

“ As already indicated , the ORG itself entertains reservations about whether the ORG [ ORG ] , even equipped with the enhanced powers which have been proposed , will be capable of persuading public opinion that complaints against the police are vigorously investigated . In the view of the ORG , the creation of a fully - fledged independent investigating agency would be a most welcome development . Such a body should certainly , like the ORG , have the power to direct that disciplinary proceedings be instigated against police officers . Further , in the interests of bolstering public confidence , it might also be thought appropriate that such a body be invested with the power to remit a case directly to the ORG for consideration of whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought .

In any event , the ORG recommends that the role of the ‘ chief officer’ within the existing system be reviewed . To take the example of CARDINAL ORG officer to whom certain of the chief officer ’s functions have been delegated ( the Director of the FAC [ Criminal Investigations Bureau ] ) , he is currently expected to : seek dispensations from the ORG ; appoint investigating police officers and assume managerial responsibility for their work ; determine whether an investigating officer ’s report indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed ; decide whether to bring disciplinary proceedings against a police officer on the basis of an investigating officer ’s report , and liase with the ORG on this question ; determine which disciplinary charges should be brought against an officer who is to face charges ; in civil cases , negotiate settlement strategies and authorise payments into court . It is doubtful whether it is realistic to expect any single official to be able to perform all of these functions in an entirely independent and impartial way .

... Reference should also be made to the high degree of public interest in ORG [ ORG ] decisions regarding the prosecution of police officers ( especially in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct ) . Confidence about the manner in which such decisions are reached would certainly be strengthened were the ORG to be obliged to give detailed reasons in cases where it was decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought . The ORG recommends that such a requirement be introduced . ”


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON Necatigil and PERSON GPE , lawyers practising in GPE , in the northern part of GPE .

and as derived from the documents submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants , a NORP couple , purchased a plot of land in DATE in the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) from a private vendor who was the registered owner under the law of the “ GPE ” . The land is situated in the village of ORG , in the district of GPE . The applicants built a villa there and regularly use the property as their holiday home .

Mr PERSON ( “ the plaintiff ” ) , a NORP - Cypriot , claimed ownership of the above land and brought proceedings against the applicants before ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking damages for trespass to his property . He also applied for a demolition order of the villa , swimming pool and fence and for the return of the property .

On DATE CARDINAL writs were issued in NORP by ORG and served on the second applicant in person at the applicants ' holiday home . She did not sign them . The writs stated that in order to prevent a default judgment an appearance had to be entered before FAC within DATE of service , namely by DATE . The applicants obtained the assistance of a lawyer , PERSON , who agreed to enter an appearance on their behalf on DATE . However , the lawyer did not enter an appearance on DATE . No explanation for this has been given .

On DATE the plaintiff filed an application for judgment to be entered in default of appearance . On DATE , as no one had entered an appearance for the applicants , ORG gave a default judgment on the plaintiff 's claim . The applicants ' lawyer attended ORG on the above date in order to enter an appearance on behalf of the applicants but judgment had already been entered . The order of ORG required immediate demolition of the villa and other constructions which the applicants had erected on the land and delivery to the plaintiff of free possession of the land . It further required the applicants to refrain from continuing the unlawful intervention on the land . Orders for damages ( special and mesne profits ) and costs were also made .

On DATE the applicants ' lawyers , PERSON and ORG , entered an appearance on behalf of the applicants and filed an application to have the judgment set aside .

On DATE , after hearing evidence and arguments from the parties , ORG delivered a judgment dismissing the application .

In its judgment ORG held , firstly , that it had jurisdiction to try the case as the land in question was situated in the district of GPE which came under its jurisdiction following the merger of that district with the district of GPE in DATE ( relying on/ referring to sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG Law CARDINAL - Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as amended ; and ORG . CARDINAL in ORG DATE ) . ORG relied on the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( ( merits ) , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVI ) as authority that ownership of land in the northern part of GPE remained with its original NORP - Cypriot owners . It noted that the argument that the court should take into account the de facto situation in the north had been put forward and dismissed by the ORG in its judgment in the case of ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . ORG then considered the merits of the application . Relying , inter alia , on the ORG 's judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) and GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , it held that the plaintiff had not lost his right to his land . It further found that the conduct of the applicants towards the property amounted to trespass and neither “ local custom ” nor the claim that the applicants had acted in good faith could provide a defence . It noted that ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( “ Regulation No . CARDINAL ” ) was not applicable in the case as it concerned exclusively the question of the recognition and enforcement of judgments in other jurisdictions and was irrelevant to the question of setting aside the judgment obtained by the plaintiff . ORG concluded that the applicants had failed to show that they had a prima facie or arguable defence and dismissed the application on that ground . Costs were awarded to the plaintiff .

It appears that due to difficulties faced in serving the applicants ' lawyers , whose offices were in the northern part of GPE , with documents and/or notices of hearings , on DATE , CARDINAL of the applicants ' lawyers , Mr M.A. , informed ORG that he would appoint an office of a colleague in GPE as an office for service and would notify the Registrar of this .

According to the applicants , on DATE , a bailiff of ORG telephoned the office of one of the applicants ' lawyers and asked them to contact the court to pick up the date for the appeal before ORG . According to the applicants a message was left with the secretary . The applicants submit that no written notification was sent to their lawyers and that , on DATE , CARDINAL of their lawyers , Mr M.A. , happened to be at ORG representing other clients and was called in by a ORG judge to appear for the applicants at the hearing . The applicants state that this was the first time that Mr PERSON had heard of the date of the appeal .

The appeal was heard on the above date .

The verbatim record of the hearing reports the following submissions by the applicant 's lawyer ( translation ) :

“ Mr PERSON : please there is no need for translation as I understand and speak the NORP language . It would therefore be a waste of time .

Your honour Mr President , your honours , at this stage I do not wish to waste the ORG 's time and I will simply adopt the outline of my address .

The only thing I wish to add is that the ORG , ORG , had this case at an unfortunate time when there was no arrangement as to whether the retainers would be in the NORP , LANGUAGE or LANGUAGE ( language ) . As you will see in the file before us , we asked for the same facility in this ORG too . In the end we agreed that it would be in the NORP language . It was a time immediately after the opening of the roadblocks when cases of such a nature came before the ORG in GPE and the Registrar had his doubts . I remember asking whether the retainer would be in LANGUAGE and they told us that the authorities of the Republic use only the NORP and NORP language . I brought a retainer before DATE in LANGUAGE , those we had in our Court and consequently there was a period of confusion . And I am sure that this confusion led to the decision that the ORG gave in these circumstances in the wrong exercise of its discretion .

All this case is based on the case of Wella and I argue and submit that her honour the judge in the lower ORG approached it wrongly . Thank you . ”

Following the submissions of the plaintiff 's lawyer , ORG reserved judgment .

Subsequently , on DATE the applicants ' lawyers sought to file an amended notice of appeal before ORG . In particular , in a letter dated DATE , the applicants requested ORG to hold DATE hearing so that all relevant principles of ORG law could be examined ; reminded ORG that it had a duty , under LAW establishing ORG to consider all relevant principles of ORG law ; and , lastly , relying on LAW expressed the view that the hearing of DATE had not afforded sufficient time for the examination of the complicated questions of ORG law that arose in the case . To their letter the applicants attached a detailed memorial and a copy of the judgment of ORG of GPE .

The applicants stated that they had not been permitted to file the aforementioned documents . On DATE , however , the clerk at the Registry informed them that although the documents would not be formally accepted they would be shown to the judges .

In the meantime the court had fixed the case for judgment for DATE . On that date , immediately before judgment was delivered , the verbatim record reports the following exchange as having taken place ( translation ) :

“ Court : DATE we fixed the case for judgment . Mr M.A. , you are submitting an application , which has not been of course translated but you have made a letter in LANGUAGE . If I understand correctly you wish to file amended grounds of appeal and reopen the case ? The case has finished and has been reserved . Will you file an application for amended grounds of appeal at this stage ?

Mr PERSON : We will withdraw this application .

Court : There are decisions that at this stage after judgment has been reserved the case is not reopened unless the ORG itself requires any clarification .

We will ignore this application and proceed to deliver judgment . The judgment is unanimous . The judgment will be given by Judge PERSON .

Mr PERSON : We do not need a translator . We waive the right for translation in NORP . ”

ORG then delivered its judgment dismissing the appeal . With regard to the issue of jurisdiction the court noted the following :

“ At the beginning of the address of learned counsel for the appellants , argumentation was put forward which aimed to show that the first instance court did not have jurisdiction or territorial competence to try the case before it . The issue of the jurisdiction of the first instance court was raised before us also by learned counsel for the respondent , who indeed invited this court to refer the issue of jurisdiction to ORG as a preliminary legal point . Following the observation made by our ORG that the issue of jurisdiction is not raised in the present appeal as it does not constitute any of the grounds of appeal , learned counsel for the respondent abandoned in essence his original suggestion . We do not intend to examine the question of jurisdiction or territorial competence of the first instance court as this matter is not raised in the appeal and is not a ground of appeal . It is correct that the matter of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and can be raised ex proprio motu by the ORG , but in the present case it is not raised in the grounds of appeal and our ORG does not consider it useful to raise it on its own initiative . ”

In the meantime , on DATE , the plaintiff applied under Regulation No . CARDINAL for recognition and enforcement in GPE of the judgments of ORG ; namely , ( i ) the default judgment of DATE and ( ii ) the judgment of DATE .

On DATE Master PERSON ordered that the above judgments be registered in and be declared enforceable pursuant to the above Regulation .

The applicants brought a successful challenge against that order before ORG under LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . By order dated DATE Mr Justice PERSON allowed the appeal and set aside the registration of the CARDINAL judgments . The applicants were successful on CARDINAL grounds . The first was that PERSON Justice PERSON considered that the effect of LAW No . QUANTITY Act of Accession , was that the acquis , and therefore Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , were of no effect in relation to matters which related to the northern part of GPE . Hence , the plaintiff could not rely on the acquis in order to secure the recognition of the judgments he had obtained . In this respect , he noted , however , that the land was within the territory of GPE and that the case law of the ORG showed that the “ GPE ” laws could not be relied on by the applicants to deprive the plaintiff of his title to the land . The second ground arose from the circumstances in which service of the original proceedings was effected and the time that was permitted for entry of an appearance to the proceedings . He granted permission to appeal to ORG .

The plaintiff lodged an appeal under LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to ORG ) ( GPE and GPE ) .

By order dated DATE ORG referred to ORG ( “ ECJ ” ) for a ruling on the issues raised , CARDINAL questions being specified in the schedule to the order . The questions , in sum , concerned , firstly , the application of Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to a judgment relating to claims to the ownership of land situated in the northern area of GPE , in view of suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in that area pursuant to LAW No . CARDINAL ; and , secondly , the interpretation of Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of Regulation No . CARDINAL with regard to the possible grounds for non - recognition and non - enforcement within the meaning of these provisions .

Following an oral hearing before the ECJ , Advocate General PERSON delivered an opinion on DATE . In her view LAW No . CARDINAL and Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Regulation No . CARDINAL did not constitute grounds for refusal of recognition or enforcement of the default judgment . With regard to LAW Advocate General PERSON concluded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Article CARDINAL ) of Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL is to be interpreted as meaning that recognition and enforcement of a default judgment may not be refused by reference to irregularities in the service of the document which instituted the proceedings , if it was possible for the defendant , who initially failed to enter an appearance , to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment , if the courts of the State where the judgment was given then reviewed the judgment in full and fair proceedings , and if there are no indications that the defendant 's right to a fair hearing was infringed in those proceedings . ”

On DATE , ORG ) gave judgment . It ruled as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The suspension of the application of the acquis communautaire in those areas of GPE in which the Government of that Member ORG does not exercise effective control , provided for by LAW No . CARDINAL on GPE to the LAW concerning the conditions of accession [ to ORG ] of ... GPE ... and the adjustments to the Treaties on which ORG is founded , does not preclude the application of ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to a judgment which is given by a NORP court sitting in the area of the island effectively controlled by ORG , but concerns land situated in areas not so controlled .

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL does not authorise the court of a Member ORG to refuse recognition or enforcement of a judgment given by the courts of another Member ORG concerning land situated in an area of the latter ORG over which its Government does not exercise effective control .

The fact that a judgment given by the courts of a Member ORG concerning land situated in an area of that ORG over which its Government does not exercise effective control , can not , as a practical matter , be enforced where the land is situated does not constitute a ground for refusal of recognition or enforcement under LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and it does not mean that such a judgment is unenforceable for the purposes of LAW that regulation . ”

Further , the ECJ found , unlike ORG , that LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL , could not legitimately be relied upon to refuse recognition or enforcement of a default judgment as the applicants had been able and did commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment of ORG . In particular , the ECJ stated as follows :

The recognition or enforcement of a default judgment can not be refused under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL where the defendant was able to commence proceedings to challenge the default judgment and those proceedings enabled him to argue that he had not been served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with the equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence . ”

ORG then gave judgment on DATE in favour of the plaintiff . It first noted that the answers of the ECJ to the questions put were such that , subject to the further issues raised before it , the appeal should be allowed and the orders of PERSON registering and declaring enforceable the NORP judgments reinstated . It then went on to examine the CARDINAL issues raised by the applicants for determination . These concerned the denial of enforcement on the basis of public policy and the possibility that the ruling of the ECJ was affected by the apparent bias of the President of that court and whether further questions on these matters should be referred to the ECJ . ORG found firstly , that there was no public policy applicable in GPE to which the recognition and enforcement of the judgments of the NORP court would be manifestly contrary and secondly , that there was no appearance of bias on the part of the President of the ECJ . It therefore considered that no reference on the above issues should be made to the ECJ .

From a letter dated DATE sent to the ORG by the applicants ' lawyers it appears that the applicants have filed an appeal before ORG of GPE and that their application for stay of execution of ORG judgments was refused .

“ CARDINAL . The appellant may , by his notice , appeal from the whole or any part of any judgment or order , and the notice shall state whether the whole or part only of the judgment or order is complained of , and in the latter case shall specify such part . The notice shall also state all the grounds of appeal and set forth fully the reasons relied upon for the grounds stated . Each ground of appeal shall be set out in a separate paragraph . After each ground of appeal the reasoning thereof shall be set out separately Any notice of appeal may be amended at any time as ORG may think fit . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall have all the powers and duties as to amendment and otherwise of ORG , together with full discretionary power to receive further evidence upon questions of fact , such evidence to be either by oral examination in ORG , by affidavit , or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner . Such further evidence may be given without special leave upon interlocutory applications , or in any case as to matters which have occurred after the date of the decision from which the appeal is brought . Upon appeals from a judgment after trial or hearing of any cause or matter upon the merits , such further evidence ( save as to matters subsequent as aforesaid ) shall be admitted on special grounds only , and not without special leave of the ORG . ORG shall have power to draw inferences of fact and to give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been made , and to make such further or other order as the case may require . The powers aforesaid may be exercised by the said ORG notwithstanding that the notice of appeal may be that a part only of the decision may be reversed or varied , and such powers may also be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties , although such respondents or parties may not have appealed from or complained of the decision . ORG shall have power to make such order as to the whole or any part of the costs of the appeal as may be just . ”

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) Where the appeal is only from part of a judgment or order , the hearing shall be confined to that part . Further , the hearing shall be confined to the grounds stated and the reasons set forth in the notice of appeal . But these provisions shall be subject to the discretion of ORG ” .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL ( as amended ) where an action concerns any matter relating to real property that action shall be brought before FAC of the district in which such property is situated .

By order of ORG published on DATE in ORG Notification No . CARDINAL following the invasion of GPE , the territories of the districts of GPE and GPE were reorganised . The power for merging of districts is granted to ORG ( as amended by PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Under domestic law if the defendant does not enter an appearance in DATE following service of writ of summons instituting proceedings the plaintiff may apply for a default judgment . Entering an appearance is an act which does not require the defendant to set out the nature of any defence .

Under LAW CARDINAL of ORG :

“ Where judgment is entered pursuant to any of the preceding rules of this Order , it shall be lawful for ORG in a proper case to set aside or vary such judgment upon such terms may be just ” .

In proceedings to set aside a default judgment the claimant is required to establish the existence of a prima facie arguable defence concerning the merits of the case . The claimant is not required to prove his defence . Further , the claimant will be required to put forward an explanation concerning his / her failure to enter an appearance ( see , for example , ORG judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON v. PERSON , ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R.CARDINAL ; ORG judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and others v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , relying on the case of PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL All ER CARDINAL ) .

The application of the acquis shall be suspended in those areas of GPE in which ORG does not exercise effective control .

The ORG , acting unanimously on the basis of a proposal from the Commission , shall decide on the withdrawal of the suspension referred to in paragraph CARDINAL .

Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts in civil and commercial matters .

The relevant provisions of the ORG provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Mutual trust in the administration of justice in the ORG justifies judgments given in a Member ORG being recognised automatically without the need for any procedure except in cases of dispute .

( CARDINAL ) By virtue of the same principle of mutual trust , the procedure for making enforceable in CARDINAL Member ORG a judgment given in another must be efficient and rapid . To that end , the declaration that a judgment is enforceable should be issued virtually automatically after purely formal checks of the documents supplied , without there being any possibility for the court to raise of its own motion any of the grounds for non - enforcement provided for by this Regulation .

( CARDINAL ) However , respect for the rights of the defence means that the defendant should be able to appeal in an adversarial procedure , against the declaration of enforceability , if he considers CARDINAL of the grounds for non - enforcement to be present . Redress procedures should also be available to the claimant where his application for a declaration of enforceability has been rejected . ”

“ The following courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction , regardless of domicile :

“ CARDINAL . In proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property , the courts of the Member ORG in which the property is situated .

“ A judgment shall not be recognised :

If such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member ORG in which recognition is sought ;

Where it was given in default of appearance , if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence , unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so ; .... ”

“ CARDINAL . Moreover , a judgment shall not be recognised if it conflicts with Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL of Chapter II , or in a case provided for in DATE .

In its examination of the grounds of jurisdiction referred to in the foregoing paragraph , the court or authority applied to shall be bound by the findings of fact on which the court of the Member ORG of origin based its jurisdiction .

Subject to ... paragraph CARDINAL , the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed . The test of public policy referred to in point CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction . ”

“ CARDINAL . A judgment given in a Member ORG and enforceable in that ORG shall be enforced in another Member State when , on the application of any interested party , it has been declared enforceable there .

“ CARDINAL . The court with which an appeal is lodged under LAW shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in DATE . It shall give its decision without delay .

Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance . ”

LAW provides for an appeal against the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability . Article CARDINAL provides for a further appeal .


Violation of Art. 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

At TIME , shortly after closing time , on DATE , a police officer in ORG ( “ ORG ” ) drove a car , stolen by ORG Constable PERSON , up to FAC , a public house . The applicant was leaving the bar at that time . He was shot twice in the stomach by PERSON , who then placed a QUANTITY gelignite bomb against the door of the pub . The detonator exploded but the bomb failed to explode . At the later trial a reserve police constable , PERSON , stated that shots were fired by his companions at the injured man on the ground and then he fired a number of shots through the window of the bar . PERSON strike marks were later found around the darts board inside the bar , where there had been CARDINAL people . CARDINAL else was physically injured .

The applicant was taken to hospital in an ambulance and police attended the scene , sealing off the area while an army technical officer examined the explosive device and ensured that it was in a safe condition . A Scene of Crime Officer examined the scene , took possession of material associated with the bomb and a gun recovered from a burnt out car found QUANTITY away , which police linked to the attack . Photographs of the bar were taken and maps prepared .

The investigation did not close and became active again in DATE , when a NORP priest Father PERSON was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis - à - vis the IRA . In the course of the investigation , the police arrested PERSON , who , in the course of questioning , revealed his part in the abduction of the priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents . PERSON made allegations incriminating himself and police officer PERSON in respect of the GPE attack . PERSON was arrested and admitted involvement . CARDINAL further serving police officers , PERSON and PERSON , also admitted involvement in , or prior knowledge of , the attack on the bar . McCaughey admitted firing the shot which wounded the applicant .

The applicant was aware that charges were pending against QUANTITY police officers . He had been contacted by the police in DATE and summoned to appear in GPE ORG on DATE . He was subsequently advised of various date changes and then that the case was postponed and that he would be contacted . In fact the hearing took place on DATE . The applicant had not been informed and learned about the outcome on the radio .

CARDINAL men , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , faced charges of attempted murder of the applicant , wounding the applicant with intent contrary to section CARDINAL of the Offences against LAW , attempted murder of the persons inside the bar , causing an explosion contrary to LAW with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury and possession of firearms and ammunition with intent . The CARDINAL officers pleaded not guilty to the charges of attempted murder ; PERSON and PERSON pleaded not guilty to wounding the applicant . ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) entered a nolle prosequi in respect of those charges which accordingly were not proceeded with . No reasons were given for this decision . The only person facing a charge concerning the applicant was PERSON , who received a term of DATE for wounding him . PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for causing an explosion , possession of an explosive substance with intent and possession of firearms and ammunition with intent , all sentences suspended for DATE . Another ORG officer , PERSON , was charged with withholding information contrary to section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( GPE ) Act DATE , based on the fact that he had been aware of the attack beforehand and had not taken any steps to prevent it .

With the exception of McCaughey , the other officers received suspended prison terms . In sentencing , Lord PERSON stated inter alia :

“ ... It does not seem realistic to believe that after all that they have endured – some with their careers in ruins , others with their careers in jeopardy- that they require much by way of deterrent or by way of reform , and no proper sentence which I pass will make an impression on terrorists while other members of the police force are no doubt already embarrassed , sufficiently embarrassed and shocked by what has happened in these cases and been seen to happen to their colleagues . ... I must remember that whatever sentence is just it would follow that it would be imposed on a different and lower scale from that appropriate to terrorists , no matter whichever side , whose aim is to achieve their political ends by violence and to attack the very fabric of society . ”

It had been advanced by the defence and accepted by the trial judge that PERSON had only aimed to shoot the applicant in the legs and had done so .

McClure had also been facing charges in relation to his involvement in the attack on ORG , ORG , in DATE in which CARDINAL people had been killed ( see application no . ORG , PERSON v. the GPE ) . These charges were later dropped .

In the course of the investigation in DATE , PERSON made revelations giving rise to investigations in CARDINAL specific cases , some of which were linked in terms of the identities of those involved , the modus operandi or by virtue of the ballistic examinations of weapons used . CARDINAL suspects were arrested in total , including QUANTITY police officers , and all were eventually charged with offences .

One of those implicated was a police officer PERSON who was named as having been involved in the murder of a shopkeeper called PERSON in PERSON in DATE : he was convicted for that murder in DATE and sentenced to life imprisonment . The ORG stated that both PERSON and PERSON refused to name the CARDINAL loyalist paramilitaries also involved with them in the murder unless they received immunity from prosecution . The police and prosecuting authority took the decision prior to the trial not to enter into any process of bargaining with PERSON and PERSON . While both were approached by the police after their convictions to see if at that stage they would give evidence against the loyalist paramilitaries , each again refused to do so unless there was something in it for themselves . The ORG stated that during the period in which PERSON was detained he was interviewed on a large number of occasions . At no time did he implicate himself or others in any offence other than the PERSON murder .

On DATE PERSON was released from prison on licence . In DATE , he made a statement to a journalist alleging ORG and ORG ( " UDR " ) collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the GPE area in DATE . This statement was published in the DATE ORG newspaper in DATE . It was obtained by ORG , a human rights non - governmental organisation in GPE ( “ the Centre ” ) .

PERSON statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents . He alleged inter alia that ORG Constable PERSON had told him that the murder of the NORP family members was carried out by PERSON , a member of the GPE , PERSON , PERSON , another Reserve Constable in the ORG and PERSON 's brother who was not a member of the security forces . The statement also made links between this incident and other attacks allegedly carried out by members of the security forces , both ORG and GPE , and loyalist paramilitaries . This group used the farmhouse in GPE owned by PERSON , a ORG reservist , as a base from which to carry out attacks on NORP and nationalists . Other attacks allegedly included the murder of PERSON and PERSON at a bogus vehicle checkpoint in DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL ) ; the attack on ORG in which PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were killed ( see application no . ORG ) ; and the murder of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and wounding of PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . PERSON also linked these attacks to the GPE and GPE bombings in which CARDINAL people were killed in GPE .

On or DATE , ORG , an NORP television channel , broadcast a television programme that contained allegations of security force involvement in a number of deaths , including that of PERSON . PERSON made allegations on that programme that members of the ORG and GPE were directly involved in the attack on ORG . A ORG programme produced a similar documentary dealing with these allegations .

These allegations attracted considerable attention on both sides of the NORP border and became the subject of police investigation in both jurisdictions . The Government stated that the police investigation in GPE was focussed on determining whether PERSON 's allegations should be assessed as sufficiently credible to require a full investigation . They obtained from the journalist an edited transcript of the interview with PERSON . While his whereabouts were unknown to the ORG , PERSON met with senior NORP police officers at FAC on DATE . A copy of his statement was provided by the PERSON to the ORG , along with a further statement made by ORG to another journalist dated DATE . The police analysed the available materials and sought to identify the personalities to be interviewed . It became apparent that some had died and that others , living abroad , could not be traced . A series of CARDINAL interviews were conducted , under cautions , DATE , of those individuals central to ORG 's account who could be traced . No charges were preferred . The interviews followed the format of ORG 's allegations being put to the interviewee for his or her response . The predominant response was denial of any involvement and claims that ORG had been untruthful . No admissions were made by any interviewee . Interviews were also conducted with less central personalities and with police officers involved in interviewing PERSON in DATE . The latter stated that PERSON had not mentioned the matters now being alleged .

Meetings were held regularly with ORG counterparts in GPE . The ORG co - operated also with the judicial inquiry established in GPE into the GPE and GPE bombings ( see the description of the inquiry in the case of PERSON referred to above ) . Amongst matters about which the ORG team provided information to the inquiry was ballistics information which linked some of the weapons used to CARDINAL incident . In DATE a substantial report was compiled by the ORG for the GPE dealing with PERSON 's allegations . It profiled PERSON and dealt inter alia with a description of the DATE investigation into ORG and others . It concluded that the investigation would continue but that his credibility was in doubt . According to ORG , despite inquiries being conducted , PERSON 's whereabouts could not be traced . This report was not disclosed as the investigation was continuing . An internal ORG report dated DATE concluded that it would be necessary to interview ORG before any view could be finalised in respect of the credibility of his allegations : such interview was not possible as his whereabouts were not known . The report noted the absence of any previous mention of the allegations before DATE and that much of what he said was hearsay and speculation . Enquiries made of ORG ( where he had a known address ) and the criminal intelligence service and others failed to locate PERSON . Contact was made with the PERSON and the secretariat of the Inquiry into the GPE and GPE bombings without positive result .

ORG ( “ ORG ” ) was established in DATE , with responsibilities including the review of all historical murders by way of case assessment for evidential and investigative opportunities .

Unlike the other case ( Brecknell , Reavey , ORG and PERSON , cited above ) , the GPE case was not referred to the ORG . This was because it was not a murder case and there had been CARDINAL convictions . Nonetheless because of connections with other cases , the case was also referred to ORG ( HET ) . The ORG director of ORG , Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON ORG , took over personal supervision of the investigation which has progressed through the first CARDINAL of CARDINAL stages of the HET process ( collection of all relevant material ; assessment of the investigations to date ; review of evidence , with intelligence and open and non - police sources , together with a meeting with the families of the victims of the attack ) . As a number of investigative opportunities were identified and to be followed up , the case was to continue to be processed by HET , which had been put in touch with PERSON by ORG The Government submitted that if any evidence of police involvement in the murders was found , ORG for GPE would then become involved . The Government have provided recent information that PERSON finally agreed to meet with the ORG in GPE ; he refused , however , to make a written statement or to give evidence in court .

There has been contact between the police and the applicant , as well as with the ORG acting on behalf of a number of concerned families . In particular , there were meetings in DATE with Detective Chief Inspector PERSON , and a meeting with the Chief Constable in DATE and DATE ; in DATE , Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON met the applicant together with the person who owned the bar at the time ; and there has also been extensive correspondence with the families or their representatives .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § DATE ) .