The applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted at ORG of raping and indecently assaulting a young woman , PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for rape and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for indecent assault , the CARDINAL sentences to run concurrently . The applicant was acquitted at the same time of raping a second woman , B.

The background of the case may be described as follows . When PERSON was aged DATE she joined a modelling agency in GPE and began DATE classes . The agency was owned by PERSON , a friend of the applicant , and DATE classes took place at ORG ’s home . When PERSON was aged DATE , she started staying overnight at PERSON ’s house on DATE . A number of other girls aged DATE also stayed at the house . PERSON exerted control over the girls , to the extent that he would tell them what to wear , what to eat , when to wash and when to go to bed . J. left school when she was aged DATE and went to live permanently at ORG house at about GPE DATE . PERSON used to take the girls to restaurants . On CARDINAL such occasion , DATE after PERSON began living with him , PERSON pointed out the applicant to her , telling her that he was “ a very important man and dead rich ” . DATE , when PERSON , PERSON and another girl from the agency NORP were at the restaurant , the applicant was also present . After the meal , PERSON said that they were to drive the applicant home in PERSON ’s car .

At the trial , PERSON gave evidence that she got into the back of the car at PERSON ’s suggestion , while PERSON sat in the front with PERSON who was driving . PERSON stated that during the journey the applicant forced her to have oral sex with him . On arrival at the applicant ’s home , PERSON told PERSON to get out as the applicant wanted to show them his house . J. followed the applicant and PERSON and ended up in a bedroom . The applicant and PERSON , who was his girlfriend , had sexual intercourse . The applicant then told PERSON to take off her clothes and made her have sexual intercourse with him . PERSON left the house and joined PERSON who was waiting in the car . PERSON said that she did as the applicant wanted because she was dominated by PERSON , and was afraid of upsetting the applicant , whom she knew to be PERSON ’s friend .

J. contacted the police in DATE . On DATE , the applicant was arrested and charged with a number of offences of a sexual nature allegedly committed against young women from the modelling agency . PERSON , who had been arrested in DATE was also charged with a number of offences of a sexual nature committed against young women from the modelling agency , including the rape of J.

The applicant was originally charged with CARDINAL offences . His defence to each charge was that the event alleged had never taken place . The applicant ’s evidence was that he had no recollection of J. having visited his home , and that there had been no contact of a sexual nature between him and PERSON at any time .

At the end of J. ’s examination in chief by the prosecution , the applicant ’s leading counsel obtained leave from the trial judge pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Sexual Offences ( Amendment ) Act DATE ( see below ) to cross - examine J. on her sexual experiences with PERSON , and in particular on the fact that she had been raped by PERSON and about the alleged control that he exerted over her . It was the defence case that PERSON was obsessed with a hatred of PERSON and it was this which motivated her allegation against the applicant . PERSON was extremely distressed by this cross - examination .

PERSON gave evidence for the defence . She had started working at PERSON ’s agency when aged DATE and had begun a relationship with the applicant when aged DATE . She stated that on one occasion she had travelled to the applicant ’s home with PERSON , the applicant ( with whom she was then having a relationship ) and PERSON ; that PERSON had driven the car , she had travelled in the front passenger seat , and the applicant and PERSON had travelled in the back of the car ; that PERSON had gone into the applicant ’s bedroom in order to use the toilet in the en suite bathroom . When PERSON came out of the toilet , she saw PERSON and the applicant lying on the bed , fully clothed . They all then left . Nothing improper occurred .

PERSON was asked in cross - examination by the prosecution about her relationship with the applicant , who had been introduced to her by PERSON . She was also asked about sexual relationships with other men introduced to her by PERSON . She accepted that she had had sexual intercourse with CARDINAL of the men , when she was aged DATE , and in the case of CARDINAL of the men , while she was still conducting a relationship with the applicant . When re - examined by defence counsel , she described these relationships as “ almost dirty or sordid ” and contrasted them with her relationship with the applicant , which she said was “ [ r]omantic , how it should have been ” . PERSON was also asked by prosecution counsel about an abortion which she had had at around this time , and was asked whether she had had “ QUANTITY in a bed ” sex involving the applicant .

No reference was made to L. ’s sexual experience by either counsel in their closing speeches , or by the judge in summing up the case for the jury . The jury proceeded to convict the applicant .

On DATE , ORG granted the applicant ’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence . The applicant applied at the same time for leave to adduce fresh evidence , in the form of a number of witnesses whose evidence was not available at the trial because , the applicant submitted , he was unaware of their existence or of the fact that they had material to make available to him . CARDINAL of the witnesses was a young man with whom PERSON had had a sexual relationship while on holiday in GPE in DATE , and to whom she had subsequently written a letter , a copy of which formed part of the fresh evidence which it was sought to adduce . ORG gave the applicant leave to amend his grounds of appeal in order to contend that his convictions were in all the circumstances unsafe , having regard to the fresh evidence .

Lord PERSON said , in giving judgment granting leave :

“ While we conclude that these witnesses are not in a position to give evidence which would have been admissible at the trial , we nonetheless consider that this is material which could have been used to attack the credit of J. and which the applicant should be free to draw to the attention of the court in support of his submission that in the light of these materials and of the case as a whole this court should consider the convictions of the applicant to be unsafe . ”

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against conviction and sentence . ORG received the fresh evidence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of LAW DATE , and then considered its significance in the context of the appeal . ORG said , in giving the judgment of ORG :

“ ... the full ORG ruled that we should give the new material such weight as it deserves when considering the extent to which the credit of ORG might have been shaken had it been available to the defence at the time of the trial . ORG did not consider , however , that it amounted to evidence which could be placed before the jury . Before us [ applicant ’s counsel ] challenged that conclusion . He submitted that where , as here , the prosecution case turns exclusively on the evidence of the complainant , evidence that bears on the credit of the complainant is not merely collateral , but goes to the heart of the case ... It seemed to us somewhat arid to invite lengthy argument about the basis upon which we should consider the significance of the new material . If it proved such as to to lead us to doubt the credibility of the complainant , we would be loth to entertain argument that the convictions should nonetheless stand because of a technical rule of evidence against the admissibility of evidence going solely as to credit . ... In these circumstances , we decided that the convenient course was to receive the evidence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of LAW DATE and , having done so , to evaluate the significance of that material . ”

As regarded the significance of the evidence of J. ’s holiday on GPE when it was alleged that she had had sexual intercourse with a young man , Lord PERSON said :

“ [ Applicant ’s counsel ] urged that this evidence was significant and could have been admitted by the Judge on CARDINAL bases :

( CARDINAL ) it showed that PERSON was not as vulnerable as she appeared .

( CARDINAL ) it had significance in relation to a pregnancy test .

( CARDINAL ) the evidence was in conflict with other evidence PERSON had given and thus tended to destroy her credibility .

J. ’s vulnerable appearance

To seek to introduce this evidence simply to counter the general impression that J. was making in the witness box would have been a paradigm example of the type of conduct that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act is designed to prevent . We have no doubt that the judge would have refused an application made on that basis . The fact that J. had enjoyed the brief relationship with a young man , which is reflected by the letter , whether before or after the date on which the offences were alleged to have been committed by the [ applicant ] , is of itself of no relevance to the question of whether she was raped and indecently assaulted by a man CARDINAL times her age .

The pregnancy test

J. had a pregnancy test on DATE . The defence were aware of this , but naturally asked her nothing about it . The new material indicates that the test probably resulted from anxiety as a result of having had sexual intercourse with [ the young man in GPE ] so that it would have been safe to cross - examine as to why PERSON did not have a pregnancy test after the alleged rape by the [ applicant ] . This argument does not attach intrinsic significance to the evidence itself , nor constitute any reason why it should have been introduced at trial . There are various reasons why the victim of a rape might not think it necessary to have a pregnancy test and the fact that the defence refrained from asking about this under a misapprehension does not affect the safety of the verdicts . ”

Concerning alleged inconsistencies revealed in ORG evidence , Lord Justice PERSON said :

“ In her evidence in chief , ORG said nothing about the effect that the alleged offences had had on her . Under cross - examination she volunteered the statement that “ when I came back from the house I spent DATE of my life trying to forget what happened . ” We do not find that the GPE holiday , if it took place during DATE in question , is inconsistent with that statement ... DATE ’s counsel ] submitted that the NORP holiday was inconsistent with the statement that PERSON had messed up her life completely and that she hated having sex ... [applicant ’s counsel ] said that if all this material had been available he would have adopted a completely different approach to ORG statement as to what happened ...

This puzzled us for we could not envisage how [ applicant ’s counsel ] could have hoped to persuade the Judge to allow him to adduce evidence about what PERSON had said in relation to events at [ PERSON ’s house ] in order to cross - examine her on the truth of those statements . Furthermore , J. had given evidence at PERSON ’s trial which ended in his conviction in DATE on counts which included rape of J. We asked [ applicant ’s counsel ] if he was suggesting that ORG account of the sexual abuse and rape that PERSON inflicted on her was untrue . He answered that he could not say that . It seems to us that that concession , which was inevitable , undermines the points that [ applicant ’s counsel ] has sought to make on inconsistencies . There can be no doubt that PERSON was subjected to appalling sexual abuse by PERSON . In whatever way she behaved thereafter , her behaviour can not be an indication that this abuse never occurred , and thus we do not see it can be an indication that abuse at the hands of the [ applicant ] never occurred . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Sexual Offences LAW DATE provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty , then , except with the leave of the judge , no evidence and no question in cross - examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial , by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial , about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant .

( CARDINAL ) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made by him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant ; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked . ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE , in the LOC , GPE . The applicants are the father and aunt of PERSON , who was born in DATE , and PERSON , who was born in DATE . The first applicant had a third son , PERSON PERSON , who was killed in DATE .

On DATE NORP military servicemen conducted a special operation in the village of GPE in the NORP district of GPE . CARDINAL persons were apprehended as a result of the operation , including PERSON and PERSON and another of the applicants ' relatives , Mr DATE At the material time the village was under the full control of the federal forces .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant and his sons PERSON and PERSON and other relatives , including Mr PERSON and Mr Islam A. , were in their family home situated in GPE . The first applicant heard noise coming from the street and looked out of the window . He saw a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks running into his yard . The men entered the house and ordered everyone to lie face down on the floor . They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents .

The intruders ordered the first applicant to hand over his family members ' passports and the family photographs . Upon receiving the documents and the photographs , the men took PERSON , PERSON and the first applicant 's nephew Mr PERSON outside .

The first applicant attempted to follow his relatives , but the armed men in the yard threatened to kill him . Meanwhile , the applicant 's sons and nephew were put in a grey UAZ car ( “ таблетка ” ) .

Sometime later the first applicant managed to go outside and saw a convoy of CARDINAL vehicles , including a grey UAZ car , CARDINAL or CARDINAL khaki coloured UAZ-CARDINAL cars and an ORG ( armoured personnel carrier ) driving away in the direction of ORG .

On DATE all persons detained during the special operation , except for PERSON and PERSON , were released .

NORP Immediately after the apprehension of GPE and PERSON the applicants and their relatives started searching for them .

The applicants ' relative , Mr PERSON , who was at the first applicant 's house during the abduction , immediately followed the convoy of military vehicles in his VAZ car with CARDINAL female relatives . On the way to PERSON the abductors ' vehicles split into CARDINAL groups . CARDINAL of them , comprised of the ORG and several UAZ cars , drove in the direction of the nearby village of ORG in the GPE district , while the other proceeded in the direction of ORG .

When the group arrived at ORG , the vehicles drove to the building of the LOC department of ORG ( “ the LOC department of the ORG ” ) and the LOC department of the interior ( “ the LOC ” ) . Some of the vehicles drove onto the agencies ' LOC .

Mr PERSON and relatives of other men apprehended during the operation in GPE decided to wait at the entrance to the ORG building . TIME Mr PERSON managed to talk to the head of the LOC department of the ORG Mr PERSON . ( also known as PERSON . ; in the documents submitted he was also referred to as Mr PERSON . ) The latter told him that he would not release his relatives until CARDINAL prosecution officials who had been abducted DATE had been returned . He told Mr PERSON that he knew about the involvement of the first applicant 's other son , PERSON , in the abduction of the CARDINAL officials . The officer threatened that if within DATE Mr PERSON did not return the CARDINAL prosecutors or bring PERSON to their office , he would hand over Mr PERSON 's apprehended relatives to military servicemen in GPE , the main base of the NORP federal forces in GPE .

Subsequently the applicants and their relatives spoke with PERSON , who told them that he had not participated in the prosecutors ' abduction and refused to go to the district department of the ORG .

Within DATE Mr PERSON had regular meetings with Mr PERSON . The latter insisted on his demands .

On DATE the first applicant 's elder son PERSON was killed in a skirmish . After that Mr PERSON . told the first applicant that at some point NORP military forces had taken PERSON and PERSON from his department under false identities and that he did not have any information concerning the brothers ' whereabouts .

The first applicant 's nephew , Mr DATE , who had been apprehended with PERSON and PERSON , was released on DATE . Mr DATE told the applicants that he had been put in one cell with PERSON and PERSON . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had been questioned by PERSON . , the head of the FAC district department of the ORG .

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON . arrived at the mosque of LOC . He told a number of local residents gathered there that PERSON and PERSON had been detained in the ORG building . CARDINAL of the local residents , Mr PERSON , asked him whether any criminal charges had been brought against the brothers . In response the officer told him that he would release PERSON and PERSON only if their elder brother PERSON surrendered to the authorities .

Mr PERSON , who had been detained for some time with the PERSON brothers in the ORG building and released , told the applicants that during the detention , PERSON and PERSON had been beaten and questioned separately from each other .

On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date CARDINAL DATE was also given ) an explosion occurred in the building of the GPE district department of the ORG and partially destroyed it . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE PERSON and PERSON were taken from the building to an unknown destination . There has been no news about the brothers ever since .

In support of their statements the applicants submitted : an account by the first applicant ( undated ) ; an account by Mr PERSON dated DATE ; an account by Mr DATE dated DATE ; an account by Mr PERSON ( undated ) ; an account by Mr PERSON ( undated ) ; an account by Mr PERSON ( undated ) and copies of documents received from the authorities .

The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants . According to their submission of DATE “ ... on CARDINAL DATE an investigator of the ORG district prosecutor 's office initiated an investigation of criminal case no . DATE opened in connection with the abduction of PERSON and PERSON under LAW ... ” .

In the same submission , referring to the contents of criminal case no . DATE , the ORG further stated :

“ ... on DATE in the village of GPE in the LOC district of GPE officers of the LOC department of the ORG conducted a special operation . The goal of the operation was the identification of persons who had abducted employees of the GPE prosecutor 's office . In the course of the criminal investigation [ of the PERSON brothers ' abduction ] the head of the FAC district department of the ORG , Mr PERSON . , who was in charge of the operation , was questioned by the investigators .

[ According to his statement ] during the operation ORG and PERSON had been brought to the FAC district department of the ORG in connection with the abduction of the officials from the GPE prosecutor 's office . As a result of the questioning it had been established that GPE and PERSON had not been involved in the abduction of the prosecution officials . After that PERSON and PERSON had been released . ”

The Government also submitted :

“ ... on DATE a terrorist act was committed in the village of Znamenskoye in the LOC district . As a result , the building of the FAC district department of the ORG was partially destroyed . Procedural documents , explanations and statements by PERSON and PERSON were [ also ] destroyed . ”

The applicants and their relatives also contacted , both in person and in writing , various official bodies , such as the NORP administration , military commanders ' offices , departments of the interior and prosecutors ' offices at different levels , asking for help in establishing the whereabouts of PERSON and PERSON . The applicants retained copies of a number of those complaints and submitted them to the ORG . An official investigation was opened by the local prosecutor 's office . The relevant information is summarised below .

According to the applicants , from DATE to DATE , on a number of occasions , they complained in person to the LOC district prosecutor 's office about the abduction of their relatives .

On DATE a local human rights organisation complained on behalf of the applicants and their relatives to the ORG district prosecutor 's office about the abduction of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the applicants ' complaint about the abduction of their relatives to the ORG district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicants ' representatives wrote to the GPE prosecutor 's office . They described in detail the circumstances of the PERSON brothers ' abduction during the special operation conducted by the FAC district department of the ORG on DATE . The letter stated that the brothers had been taken to the detention centre of the district department of the ORG ; they had been detained there until DATE , when they had been taken away in an unknown direction . According to the information obtained by the applicants from the persons who had been detained together with PERSON and PERSON from DATE , the conditions of their detention had been inhuman ; the brothers had been beaten , had marks of ill - treatment on their bodies and fallen ill . After DATE , according to some witnesses , the conditions of their detention in another place had also been inhuman ; the brothers had been severely beaten and bound by adhesive tape . According to the letter , the applicants and their relatives had spoken with the head of the FAC district department of the ORG Mr PERSON . who had told them that the release of the CARDINAL PERSON brothers would be possible only in exchange for their elder brother PERSON . The letter further stated that the applicants had complained about the arrest and detention of GPE and PERSON to a number of authorities , including the FAC district prosecutor 's office , the FAC district department of the ORG , the ORG district prosecutor 's office and the GPE prosecutor 's office . Referring to LAW the applicants requested the following information : on what grounds the PERSON brothers had been arrested ; whether any criminal charges had been brought against them and if so , what stage the criminal investigation was at ; which authorities had issued the warrant for their arrest and where exactly the brothers had been detained . Finally , the applicants requested the authorities to ensure their safety and the safety of the witnesses to the abduction of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE and DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office had initiated an investigation into the abduction of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE ORG wrote to the GPE prosecutor 's office . The letter stated that PERSON and PERSON had been abducted on DATE during an identity check .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office granted the second applicant victim status in criminal case no . DATE instituted in connection with the abduction of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE and DATE the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG ) forwarded the applicants ' complaints about the abduction to the GPE prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor 's office informed the GPE prosecutor 's office that on DATE the investigation in the criminal case had been suspended and that the investigators had been instructed to take investigating measures and that upon their completion the case would be transferred to the FAC district prosecutor 's office for further investigation .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on that date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on that date they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

On DATE the second applicant requested the ORG district prosecutor 's office to inform her about the results of the criminal investigation of the abduction and provide her with access to the investigation file .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the GPE prosecutor 's office . He stated that his CARDINAL sons , PERSON and PERSON , had been abducted on DATE by representatives of the LOC district department of the ORG under the command of officer PERSON . , and that the investigation opened by the PERSON prosecutor 's office had been ineffective . In particular , the applicant pointed out that the investigators had failed to comply with the court 's decision of DATE concerning the reopening of the suspended investigation and questioning of all persons involved in the abduction ; that the investigation had been suspended several times in spite of the authorities ' failure to establish the circumstances of the abduction . The applicant requested the GPE prosecutor 's office to take over the investigation and to comply with the court 's decision of DATE .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed .

In DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the ORG district court of GPE ( the district court ) . They complained of unlawful suspensions of the investigation in the criminal case and a failure on the part of the authorities to take basic investigative measures . The applicants sought a ruling obliging the prosecutor 's office to resume the investigation and question the witnesses of their relatives ' abduction .

On DATE the district court allowed the complaint . The court stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... the court established that :

... from [ the date of the opening of the criminal case ] DATE up to the present the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was suspended CARDINAL times and resumed twice owing to the applicants ' numerous complaints .

On DATE the investigator Zh . U. took the last decision to suspend the investigation for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators ; this decision was taken by him after DATE , that is , [ shortly ] after the applicants had lodged their court complaint about his actions .

Given the kind of approach the investigator has taken to the execution of his work duties , it is possible that the perpetrators [ of the abduction ] will not be established any time soon [ ... ] the investigator did not carry out the written orders issued by the deputy district prosecutor on DATE ... even though such orders were compulsory ...

In the course of the preliminary investigation it had been unequivocally established by whom and when the PERSON brothers had been arrested and where they had been detained . From this it follows that the investigator and the supervising prosecutor must concentrate their attention on the identification of those who detained the brothers , on the examination of the lawfulness and the grounds for their detention , [ and ] the establishment of the actual place of their detention , which was carried out without lawful grounds ...

The court decided :

To recognise as unlawful the actions of the investigator Zh . U. concerning the suspension of the investigation in criminal case no . DATE under LAW CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Code [ for failure to establish the identities of the perpetrators ] ;

To oblige the investigator to carry out in full the written orders issued by the [ supervising ] prosecutor ... ;

To question all persons involved in the arrest of the PERSON brothers in violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Code [ grounds and procedure for detention ] ;

To examine the lawfulness and the grounds for the PERSON brothers ' detention without a court order , [ which took place ] in violation of LAW [ arrest procedure ] ... ”

On DATE the second applicant complained to the district court that the investigation into the abduction had been ineffective . She described in detail the circumstances of the abduction and pointed out that PERSON and PERSON had been unlawfully detained as hostages in the FAC district department of the ORG . The applicant stated that the investigation into the abduction had been suspended several times and that the last suspension had taken place on DATE . The applicant sought a ruling obliging the prosecutor 's office to resume the investigation and transfer it to the GPE prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the district court rejected the applicant 's complaint . On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal by ORG .

The ORG submitted that the investigation of the abduction of the applicants ' relatives had commenced on DATE upon receipt on DATE of a complaint by the applicants ' relative Mr GPE about the abduction of PERSON and PERSON on DATE .

On DATE the investigators conducted a crime scene examination at the first applicant 's house . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . According to a copy of his witness statement submitted to the ORG , the applicant stated that at TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL masked men in military uniforms armed with automatic weapons had broken into his house . The men had put everyone up against the wall , and then ordered everyone to lie on the floor face down . After that they had demanded everyone 's passports and checked them . The men had returned all the documents , expect for the passports of his sons PERSON and PERSON . Immediately after the men had taken the applicant 's CARDINAL sons outside , put them in a light - coloured UAZ vehicle ( ' tabletka ' ) and taken them to the settlement of GPE in the LOC district of GPE . When the applicant had asked the men about the reasons for the arrest of his sons , the men had not explained anything . They had told him and his relatives to stay inside , threatening to shoot if anyone went outside . According to the applicant , the abductors had arrived at his house in a light - coloured UAZ vehicle and CARDINAL grey ORG vehicles ; the cars did not have registration numbers . At some point later the applicant had asked the head of the LOC department of the ORG Mr PERSON . about his sons . The latter had told him that PERSON and PERSON had been detained on the premises of his department . The applicant had not received any other information about his sons ' whereabouts .

On DATE the investigators granted the second applicant victim status in the criminal case .

According to the ORG , the investigators also questioned a number of witnesses . Without providing any of the relevant witness statements and the dates , the Government summarised their testimonies as follows .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants ' relative , Mr GPE , who stated that on DATE he had been in the first applicant 's house with his relatives . In TIME a group of armed masked men had broken into the house , checked identity documents and taken him , PERSON and PERSON in a ORG car to the village of PERSON in the LOC district . There they had been placed in one cell . In TIME of the same day the witness had been interrogated twice . The first questioning had been conducted by PERSON . who had asked him about PERSON . The second interrogation was conducted by a man who had spoken unaccented NORP , in the presence of a NORP man . In TIME of DATE the witness had been released , whereas PERSON and PERSON remained in detention .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the second applicant . She stated that on DATE a special operation had been conducted in GPE by the local ORG office and that Mr PERSON . had been in charge of it . As a result of this operation CARDINAL young men had been arrested in the settlement , including her nephews PERSON and PERSON and Mr GPE Many of the detainees had been released in TIME on DATE . On DATE her nephew Mr I.A. had also returned home . He had told her that he had been detained with PERSON and PERSON in the ORG office .

On unspecified dates the investigators also questioned CARDINAL other witnesses , including the first applicant , Mr TIME , Mr GPE , PERSON . PERSON , PERSON DATE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr T.A. , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE , who provided statements similar to the CARDINAL given by the second applicant .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbour , PERSON . NORP , who stated that at TIME on DATE CARDINAL grey UAZ vehicles without registration numbers had arrived at the first applicant 's house . A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had gotten out of the cars . The men had taken the first applicant 's CARDINAL sons and driven them away in the direction of the LOC district .

On an unspecified date the investigators also questioned Mr GPE , who provided a statement similar to the CARDINAL given by PERSON . NORP

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned PERSON who stated that at TIME on DATE she had been driving with her relatives through the area situated next to the bridge in the village of GPE . There she had seen several ORG cars and APCs which were driving in the direction of the village of PERSON in the LOC district . After the witness had arrived at ORG , she had learnt from the local residents that TIME a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms under the command of the head of the LOC department of the ORG , Mr PERSON . , had taken PERSON and PERSON away ; that the relatives of the abducted men had followed the abductors in cars and that they had seen that the CARDINAL brothers had been taken to the LOC of the FAC district department of the ORG .

On unspecified dates the investigators also questioned CARDINAL other witnesses , including PERSON . , Ms. PERSON and ORG , who provided statements similar to the one given by PERSON

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that he had known PERSON and PERSON since childhood . On DATE he had learnt that the CARDINAL brothers had been arrested as a result of the operation conducted under the command of the head of the FAC district department of the ORG , Mr PERSON . According to the witness , the elder brother of the arrested men , ORG , had been a member of illegal armed groups but PERSON and PERSON had not been involved in illegal activities . At some point PERSON had been killed by the PERSON ( special task force ) police officers during a skirmish in the village of LOC .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the applicants ' relative PERSON , who stated that his nephews PERSON and PERSON had been arrested on DATE by representatives of the LOC district department of the ORG in the presence of its head , PERSON PERSON . On DATE many of those who had been detained were released . However , PERSON and PERSON did not return home .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned a police officer , GPE , who stated that in DATE he had worked as the district police officer in the settlement of Podebinskoye in the ORG district . DATE prior to that , in DATE , PERSON and PERSON had been brought to the FAC district department of the ORG .

On unspecified dates the investigators also questioned PERSON and Mr B.S. , who had provided statements similar to the above statement by PERSON GPE

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr E.A. who stated that CARDINAL or DATE after the apprehension of GPE and PERSON he had been detained on the premises of the ORG office in the FAC district and that at the time he had not seen the applicants ' relatives there .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr GPE , who stated that in DATE CARDINAL of his fellow villagers , including GPE and PERSON , had been detained by representatives of the ORG in the villages of LOC . On DATE he had been arrested by representatives of the Nadterechniy district department of the ORG and was released DATE . During his detention at the ORG office he had not seen the applicants ' relatives .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned the head of the LOC district department of the ORG Mr PERSON . , who stated that after CARDINAL staff members of the GPE prosecutor 's office had been kidnapped their department had taken operational search measures aimed at establishing the identity of the perpetrators . As a result , PERSON and PERSON had been brought over to the ORG office and questioned . After it had been established that the CARDINAL brothers had not been involved in the abduction , PERSON and PERSON had been released . The witness did not know why the brothers had not returned home . The officer further stated that PERSON and PERSON had signed papers to the effect that they had nothing against the officers of the ORG ; however , these documents had been later destroyed . Relatives of PERSON and PERSON had contacted the witness on a number of occasions asking for assistance in establishing the brothers ' whereabouts . According to the witness , he had had information concerning the possible absconding of PERSON and PERSON from GPE to GPE , where their brother PERSON , an active member of illegal armed groups , had been hiding . In DATE PERSON had been killed in a shoot - out . The witness had no information concerning the whereabouts of PERSON and PERSON .

The investigators requested information from the LOC court concerning arrest orders issued by the court as of DATE in respect of GPE and PERSON . According to the district court , no such orders had been issued by it .

The investigators also requested information from the head of the LOC district administration concerning the list of persons who had suffered as a result of the terrorist attack committed on CARDINAL DATE in PERSON . The list of victims did not contain the names of PERSON and PERSON .

According to the Government , the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of GPE and PERSON ; their corpses were not found . No evidence demonstrating the involvement of federal forces in their disappearance was found .

According to the documents submitted by the ORG , DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions , that is , on DATE , DATE and DATE , and it has so far failed to establish the identities of the perpetrators .

From the ORG 's submission it follows that on DATE the head of ORG at ORG decided that the investigation of the abduction of the applicants ' relatives should be carried out by a joint group of investigators from the prosecutor 's office and the military investigations department .

The Government further submitted that all the measures envisaged under the domestic law were being taken by the investigators and that the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the proceedings .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE , providing only copies of several notifications to the applicants of the suspension and reopening of the proceedings and a copy of the witness statement given by the first applicant on DATE . The Government stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


CASE OF KELLY AND OTHERS 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 , as submitted by the parties and which may be deduced from the documents , may be summarised as follows . The applicants accepted that the summaries below are an accurate reflection of the written statements made by the official personnel involved , without making any admission as to the credibility , consistency and veracity of these statements .

Following a briefing that there was likely to be a terrorist attack on ORG station of ORG ( the ORG ) in GPE on DATE , CARDINAL soldiers and CARDINAL ORG officers arrived at the station in TIME . Under the command of Soldier A , the soldiers positioned themselves in CARDINAL locations surrounding the ORG station . Soldiers A , B , C , D , E and F were dressed in plain clothes and remained inside the ORG station ( FAC ) . All the other soldiers wore military uniform . Soldiers G , H , I and J were positioned in a wooded area to the south of FAC , near the junction with a road which is the first on the right from the police station going towards GPE ( Position CARDINAL ) . Soldiers K , L , M and N were positioned in a wooded area to the south of the PERSON road , generally opposite No . CARDINAL FAC ( Position CARDINAL ) . Soldiers O , P , Q and R were instructed to position themselves in a wooded area to the south of FAC , near what is known as LOC ( Position CARDINAL ) . Soldiers S , T and U were positioned in a wooded area to the rear of GPE Church , on the south side of FAC and to the east of the ORG station ( Position CARDINAL ) . Soldiers V , W and X occupied a position in a wooded area to the north of FAC , QUANTITY to the rear of the ORG station ( Position CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL members of the ORG , ORG , B and C , were positioned inside the ORG station . The ORG station , which operated on a part - time basis only , was opened as normal at TIME on CARDINAL DATE . Police Constable A was in charge of the station , with B and C assisting him in the running of the station . The station was closed at TIME , re - opened at TIME and closed again at TIME

At TIME hooded men hijacked a blue ORG Hiace van from a Mr PERSON , who was carrying out some work at ORG , FAC , GPE , GPE . He was warned not to report the incident to the police for TIME . When the men left , Mr PERSON phoned his employer , the van ’s owner , and told him about the incident . The owner , Mr PERSON , waited TIME and reported the incident to Coalisland RUC at TIME

At TIME , CARDINAL armed men who said they were from the IRA entered the house of the PERSON family in GPE , GPE . The men said they wanted to borrow the digger and CARDINAL of the sons was brought outside to fill it with diesel . At TIME , a vehicle pulled up outside and a fourth man arrived . It appears that a bomb containing QUANTITY of explosives was prepared in the yard of the house and placed in the bucket of the digger . At TIME the digger was driven out of the yard and the other vehicle left shortly afterwards . At TIME the remaining CARDINAL gunmen left the house . Attempts by the family to phone the police failed as their phone and that of their neighbour were out of order . However , CARDINAL of the sons eventually alerted a police patrol .

The soldiers reported a number of sightings of the blue ORG van passing in front of the ORG station in both directions . Reports that the van had been hijacked , and that a digger was acting suspiciously in the area , were also received . Given this information and the knowledge that diggers had been used in previous terrorist attacks , the soldiers were on full alert when , CARDINAL , the blue van came from the PERSON direction and parked outside the station on the far side of the road facing GPE .

A man , dressed in blue overalls and wearing a balaclava , emerged from the rear of the van and began to walk into the roadway . He raised his rifle and began to shoot at the ORG station . Soldiers A to E , who had positioned themselves at windows on the first floor of the station began to return fire without warning . Soldier F had set up the radio equipment in the rear ground floor room , and he remained there during the shooting . The driver then got out of the van and began to fire at the station . CARDINAL more men emerged from the rear of the van and commenced firing at the station . Following continuous fire from the direction of the ORG station and from other soldiers , some of the IRA men began to take cover behind the van and others went to get into the back of the van . Soldiers A to E fired into the side of the van . Soldier B received a facial injury from flying glass after a window by which he was standing was broken by gunfire .

During this time , CARDINAL of the IRA men drove the digger through the front gate of the station and Soldier B , having spotted this , fired a short burst at the driver . The digger stopped and shortly afterwards there was an explosion which caused masonry and dust to fly everywhere . Soldiers A to F and Constable A were unhurt by the blast , which damaged a large part of the station . Constable C was later treated for a fractured skull , damage to his left sinus , broken facial bone , a broken finger , a broken toe and bruising . Constable B also received some injuries . Constables B and C were led outside by Constable A and Soldier C , who administered first aid to them . Soldier F also left the station by the rear and did not take any part in the shooting .

Soldiers A , B , D and E moved towards the front of the ORG station and continued to fire at the men near the van , firing through the sides of the van when the men took cover inside , until there was no further movement from the gunmen . In his statement to the police , Soldier B stated that he approached the van to clear it of further danger to his life and those of his colleagues . As he looked into the back of the van , he saw CARDINAL men and a number of weapons . CARDINAL of the men made a sudden movement and Soldier B fired CARDINAL round into him as it was his belief that it was the man ’s intention to get CARDINAL of the weapons . Soldier V stated that he approached the van with Soldier B , carrying out a visual check of the bodies . As he moved alongside the van , there was a movement in the area of a body that caught his eye . He took this as an immediate threat and fired one burst into the body .

Soldiers positioned in other areas also fired at the various gunmen once they had begun to shoot at the ORG station . Some of the soldiers stated that they came under fire . Shortly after the bomb exploded , Soldiers K and R observed what they thought was a gunman lying in the grass behind the police station . He failed to stand up when challenged to do so , and both soldiers fired several rounds at what turned out to be a large lump of wood . Moving down along the back of the houses towards the police station , PERSON saw a man whom he apprehended , tied his hands and feet and handed him over to the ORG who arrested him . This man was a PERSON PERSON who was not involved in the attack . He happened on the shooting , and had left his car to seek cover when he was detained .

Soldier V fired at a man in a blue boiler suit crossing the road in a crouched manner . The man fell . He saw another man behind a wall and shouted to him to stand up . The man moved away quickly , then turned fully towards Soldier V who saw something in his hand which he regarded as an immediate threat and fired CARDINAL bursts from his rifle until the man fell . PERSON passing the body saw no weapon near it .

When the blue van and the digger arrived at the ORG station , there had been a white PERSON car right behind them . After shooting started but before the bomb went off , this car began to reverse towards the soldiers in position CARDINAL . Soldiers S , T and U opened automatic fire on the car and when they stopped firing the vehicle was QUANTITY away . The front seat passenger got out of the car despite a warning from Soldier U not to move . He was wearing blue coveralls . Almost immediately , he was hit by gunfire from Soldier U and he fell to the ground . Later realising that he was still alive , Soldiers S and U moved him onto the pavement and put CARDINAL field dressings on his wounds . The driver of the car was dead at the wheel of the car .

Soldier W approaching the police station noticed QUANTITY away in the driveway a person lying on his back still moving . He saw that the man ’s right hand was clenched and that something metallic was protruding . Believing the man to be a threat to himself and Soldier V , he fired QUANTITY shots at him . Soldier X checking the body found that the man was holding a cigarette lighter .

Other vehicles near the scene of the attack included a red ORG QUANTITY from position CARDINAL , occupied by a woman and her daughter , a blue Escort QUANTITY from the scene which was empty and a white ORG , with CARDINAL female occupants . These cars , or their occupants , were directed to positions of safety by soldiers as soon as the opportunity arose .

When the shooting ceased the soldiers and members of the ORG were airlifted back to their barracks .

From TIME , officers from ORG , ORG and ORG began arriving to survey the crime scene and identify items of forensic interest . Photographs were taken of the scene and of the bodies . The scene can be described as follows :

There were CARDINAL significantly bullet damaged vehicles , a blue ORG Hiace van ( with CARDINAL bullet holes in the bodywork ) and a white PERSON car ( with CARDINAL bullet holes in the front , rear and side of the car ) . In the vicinity of the junction of FAC there were bullet damaged ORG Cavalier and ORG estate cars .

The bodies were wearing blue boiler suits except where specified otherwise .

The first body ( PERSON ) was found lying at the front of the van with a radio lying on the ground beside the body and a rifle lying on the body . There was debris on the rifle suggesting that this person was lying on the ground before the explosion . The pathologist noted that his right upper canine tooth had recently been torn out .

The second body ( PERSON ) was lying on the pavement at the north side of the van near the open side door with a rifle nearby . The body was lying on top of the right leg of body CARDINAL , strongly suggesting that body CARDINAL was lying on the ground before body CARDINAL fell .

The third body ( PERSON ) was lying on the pavement towards the north side of the ORG van . There was ammunition and a cigarette lighter near the body . The pathologist observed CARDINAL separate missile wounds ( i.e. bullet and fragment ) and found that discharge abrasion on an entry wound on the front of the neck indicated that when the gun was discharged the muzzle was within QUANTITY of the body , probably while it was lying on the ground .

The fourth body ( PERSON ) was lying face down along the outside panel inside the rear of the van with the head towards the rear door . There was ammunition in the pocket of the boiler suit ( he was also wearing a flak jacket ) and in the jeans pocket . The post mortem examination revealed CARDINAL wounds to the torso and head .

The fifth body ( PERSON ) was lying diagonally across the interior of the van with the feet towards the rear door . There was ammunition in the pocket of the boiler suit and in the anorak and jeans pockets . Material on the body suggested that it was on the floor before the explosion occurred . He had received multiple bullet and fragment injuries .

There were CARDINAL loaded rifles and CARDINAL shotgun found in the van . CARDINAL of the stocks were folded .

The sixth body ( PERSON ) , which had massive head damage and multiple injuries elsewhere , was seated in the driver seat of the van . There was a revolver lying between the driver ’s seat and his door .

The seventh body ( PERSON ) was lying in a lane - way opposite the LOC of ORG . This body was not wearing a boiler suit and there was a cigarette lighter close to the right hand .

The eighth body ( PERSON ) was lying on its right side on the pavement at the PERSON side of the lane - way . CARDINAL wounds were noted by the pathologist .

The ninth body ( PERSON ) was seated with the seat belt on in the driver ’s seat of the white PERSON car . The body was not wearing a boiler suit . The post mortem examination showed CARDINAL wounds ( bullet and shrapnel ) .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , the police took possession of the firearms used by Soldiers A to X which were delivered DATE to ORG for examination .

On TIME , a scene of crimes officer and forensic experts from ORG conducted an examination of the scene and took possession of a large number of exhibits . The cars were removed for expert examination .

Spent cartridge cases were recovered from all over the crime scene which stretched from the junction of FAC to ORG in the vicinity of the start of FAC , PERSON . In total , CARDINAL spent cartridge cases were recovered , CARDINAL of which were from IRA weapons .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL forensic doctors carried out post mortem examinations of the bodies .

DATE , police officers conducted lengthy interviews with soldiers A to X , each of whom made a written statement . On DATE , soldier L was asked by the police to clarify his statement .

On DATE , the ORG forwarded a report to ORG for GPE ( the ORG ) on the outcome of their ORG investigation . On DATE , he concluded that the evidence did not warrant the prosecution of any person involved in the shootings . The Government stated that this decision was notified to the next - of - kin of the deceased . The applicants stated that only the family of PERSON was informed .

On DATE , the statements taken during the ORG investigation were forwarded to the Coroner .

On DATE , the Coroner held a preliminary meeting attended by the lawyers representing the relatives of the deceased . At their request , he adjourned the inquest which he had intended to hold on DATE , pending the determination of the PERSON case , before ORG ( and subsequently ORG ) , which concerned the powers of Coroners and the procedure at inquests . Judgments were given by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE , pursuant to which it was established that rule CARDINAL of the Coroners’ Rules did not prevent coroners admitting written statements in evidence .

The inquests were further adjourned pending the outcome of proceedings relating to the inquests into the deaths of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL brought by PERSON ) . These proceedings involved decisions by ORG on DATE and DATE and by ORG on DATE , by which it was held that relatives’ counsel was entitled to see a document used by a witness to refresh his memory . There were further proceedings before ORG on DATE , when the writs of subpoena , by which the ORG had attempted to obtain , inter alia , copies of the ORG and ORG , were set aside . The ORG , PERSON and PERSON inquests terminated on DATE .

An inquest into the deaths of the men in the present case was opened on CARDINAL DATE in public before a Coroner and a jury of CARDINAL members . It lasted DATE . The ORG and ORG were represented . On DATE of the inquest , counsel representing the families of CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL deceased ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) sought for the statements of prospective witnesses to be made available to them at the commencement of the proceedings together with the maps and photographs . The Coroner made available the maps and photographs but did not permit counsel ( other than those instructed on the Coroner ’s behalf ) to see witness statements until the witness was giving evidence .

On DATE of the inquest , counsel for the CARDINAL families asked for the proceedings to be adjourned to allow them to seek judicial review of the decision to refuse access to the witness statements . This adjournment was refused and , following the rejection of a second application , counsel was instructed by the CARDINAL families to withdraw from the hearing to seek a remedy by way of judicial review . This step was taken on CARDINAL DATE following consultation with the families and because it was felt “ utterly impossible for the ORG interests to be fairly or adequately represented given the rulings of the Coroner ” .

NORP The hearing of the inquest proceeded without representation for any of the CARDINAL families . The Coroner heard CARDINAL witnesses , including the brother of PERSON who had been shot and injured , civilian and police eye - witnesses , including ORG and B and the police officers involved in the investigation . None of the soldiers appeared but their statements were lodged . It was concluded on DATE that all CARDINAL men had died from serious and multiple gun shot wounds .

The family of PERSON sought judicial review of the Coroner ’s decisions not to allow the legal representatives to see witness statements before they gave evidence , not to allow additional time to their advisers to consider expert and controversial evidence , and the refusal of the application for an adjournment . Leave was granted on DATE . In his judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Mr Justice PERSON in ORG refused to quash the Coroner ’s decisions or the jury verdict . In doing so , the judge placed considerable emphasis on the character of an inquest as a fact finding exercise and not a method of apportioning guilt .

CARDINAL of the families ( the relatives of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) issued civil proceedings against ORG on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On DATE , the PERSON family settled proceedings for MONEY ( GBP ) in respect of PERSON , who was a civilian unconnected with the IRA gunmen .

No further steps were taken to pursue the proceedings by the family of PERSON . Regarding the remaining CARDINAL families , who are represented by the same lawyer , statements of claim were issued in DATE , alleging that the shooting of the deceased represented excessive force and was unnecessary and unlawful or , alternatively , that there was negligence , inter alia , in failing to give warnings or an opportunity to submit to lawful arrest and using excessive force .

On DATE , the CARDINAL families issued notice of their intention to proceed with their claims .

On DATE , ORG served their defence , stating inter alia that the force used was necessary to prevent the deceased committing unlawful acts and to protect lives and personal safety . They also served a notice requesting further and better particulars of the statement of claim .

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 and 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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 under 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 ) ) .

DATE . 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 ORG ’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 NORP 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 - 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 not 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 .

DATE . 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 . ”