Site icon swarb.co.uk

Stephen Jordan (No 2) v The United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Dec 2002

The applicant was a soldier who had been court marshalled for misuse of travel warrants. He wished to use in his defence his recent epilepsy. There was some delay while medical reports were obtained, and subsequently when the new legal system was brought in and again for the issue of a new legal aid order. Eventually he came to challenge the proceedings as an abuse for delay. The proceedings took nearly 5 years.
Held: The delay was not all at the feet of the prosecutors, but they should have taken a firmer hold on matters. The delay amounted to a time which was unreasonable and in breach of the appellant’s right to a fair trial.
‘The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State’s general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to ‘secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention’, also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, the McCann judgment cited above, p 49, para 161, and the Kaya v Turkey [1998] ECHR 22729/93, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, p 324, para 86 of the latter reports). The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility. What form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances. However, whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion, once the matter has come to their attention. They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Ilhan v Turkey [GC] [2000] ECHR 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, para 63).’

Citations:

49771/99, (2003) 37 EHRR 2, [2002] ECHR 797, [2002] ECHR 803, [2001] Inquest LR 101, (2001) 11 BHRC 1

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

See AlsoJordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 29-Jan-2002
The claimant challenged the Lord Chancellor’s failure to introduce legislation to ensure that the coroners’ system in Northern Ireland comprised with Human Rights Law. . .
See AlsoRe Jordan’s Application QBNI 8-Mar-2002
The claimant challenged a ruling of the coroner on 9 January 2002 that he would conduct the inquest on the basis of existing law and practice and would not leave to the jury the option of returning a verdict of unlawful killing. . .

Cited by:

CitedIn re McKerr (Northern Ireland) HL 11-Mar-2004
The deceased had been shot by soldiers of the British Army whilst in a car in Northern Ireland. The car was alleged to have ‘run’ a checkpoint. The claimants said the investigation, now 20 years ago, had been inadequate. The claim was brought under . .
At ECHRJordan v Lord Chancellor and Another (Northern Ireland) HL 28-Mar-2007
In each case a death had occurred many years earlier where the deceased had apparently died at the hands of the armed forces. The relatives now challenged the range of verdicts which could be left to a coroner’s jury.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The . .
At ECHRJordan, Re an Application for Judicial Review QBNI 12-Jan-2004
. .
CitedJordan v Lord Chancellor and Another (Northern Ireland) HL 28-Mar-2007
In each case a death had occurred many years earlier where the deceased had apparently died at the hands of the armed forces. The relatives now challenged the range of verdicts which could be left to a coroner’s jury.
Lord Bingham said: ‘The . .
CitedSaunders and Tucker, Regina (on the Application of) v The Association of Chief Police Officers and others Admn 10-Oct-2008
The deceased had been shot by police during an armed siege. His family complained that the Independent Police Complaints Commission had declined to order the officers not to confer with each other before making statements.
Held: The authority . .
CitedReynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Sussex Police and Another Admn 16-May-2008
The complainant’s brother had been arrested for being drunk. After a time in a cell, he was found unwell and fell into a coma. Complaints were made of his treatment. The Police Complaints Commission was to investigate the events after the arrest . .
CitedReynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Independent Police Complaints Commission and Another CA 22-Oct-2008
The court was asked to consider whether the IPCC could investigate the circumstances leading to the arrest of a suspect who fell into a coma after being arrested for being drunk. The IPCC appealed, saying that it did not have jurisdiction to . .
CitedMousa, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another CA 22-Nov-2011
The claimant sought a public inquiry into allegations of systematic ill treatment by UK soldiers in Iraq. He now appealed against refusal of an inquiry, the court having found it permissible for the Secretary of Styate to await the outcome of . .
CitedLetts, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 20-Feb-2015
Application for judicial review concerning the criteria applied by the Legal Aid Agency to determine whether relatives of a deceased should be granted legal aid for representation at an inquest into a death which has arisen in circumstances which . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Armed Forces

Leading Case

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.178422

Exit mobile version