Regina (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 5 Oct 2001

An Asian youth was placed in a cell with another who was well known to be violent and racist. He was bludgeoned to death. The family sought a public investigation into how he came to be placed in such a position. An investigation had been refused by the Home Office. The family claimed, under the Human Rights Act, a right to have the matter determined. Investigations by the Coroner, and the Commission for Racial Equality would be limited. Contrary to what the Home Office said, the trial had done nothing to establish how the decision was made to put the two together. There had been an investigation which rejected the possibility of criminal action against the Prison Service. This was not public. An internal Prisons Service enquiry left several questions outstanding. Article 2 imposed a duty to protect life, and investigate a failure to do so. That investigation must be independent, effective, reasonably prompt, allow public scrutiny, and involve next of kin. That had not been satisfied. A declaration was granted requiring the Home Office to conduct such an investigation.
Mr Justice Hooper
[2001] EWHC Admin 719, [2002] 3 WLR 505
European Convention on Human Rights Art 2
England and Wales

  • Cited – Jordan v United Kingdom; McKerr v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 4-May-2001
    Proper Investigation of Deaths with Army or Police
    Claims were made as regards deaths of alleged terrorists in clashes with the UK armed forces and police. In some cases the investigations necessary to justify the taking of life had been inadequate. Statements made to the inquiry as to the . .
    Times 18-May-01, 24746/94, 37715/97, 30054/96, [2001] 11 BHRC 1, [2001] 37 EHRR 52, 28883/95, (2002) 34 EHRR 20, [2001] ECHR 323, [2001] ECHR 324, [2001] ECHR 325, [2001] ECHR 327, [2001] ECHR 328, [2001] ECHR 329, [2001] ECHR 330
  • Cited – Salman v Turkey ECHR 27-Jun-2000
    Where someone dies or is injured whilst in custody the burden is on the state to provide a ‘satisfactory and convincing explanation’ of what has happened: ‘Persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to . .
    21986/93, [2000] 34 EHRR 425, [2000] ECHR 357

Cited by:

  • Cited – Regina on the Application of Mullholland v HM Coroner for St Pancras QBD 7-Nov-2003
    The applicant sought to re-open a coroner’s inquest. The deceased had been drunk, slipped banged his head and fallen to the ground. Police and ambulance were called. The ambulance worker was not told he had been unconscious, and he was taken to the . .
    [2003] EWHC 2612 (Admin)

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 December 2020; Ref: scu.166547