City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: McIntosh, S. (2016). Open justice and investigations into deaths at the hands of the police, or in police or prison custody. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/15340/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Open Justice and Investigations into Deaths at the Hands of the Police, or in Police or Prison Custody By Sam McIntosh PhD Candidate CITY UNIVERSITY, LONDON LAW SCHOOL FEBRUARY 2016 i CONTENTS Table of Contents ii Table of Cases (England and Wales) x Table of Cases (ECtHR and ECmHR) xii Table of Cases (other Jurisdictions) xiv Table of Statutes and Bills xvi Table of Statutory Instruments xix List of Inquest and Inquiry Directions, Orders, Submissions and Transcripts xxi Acknowledgments xxiv Publications During Candidature xxv Abstract xxvi List of Abbreviations xxvii Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 1.1 Background to the study 2 1.2 Aim 5 1.3 Scope 6 1.3.1 The types of death which form the focus of the study 6 1.3.2 The types of investigation which form the focus of the study 7 1.3.3 Justice theory 7 1.4 Methodology 8 1.5 Chapter outline 9 PART 1 – Practice Chapter 2 – ECtHR Jurisprudence on Article 2’s Procedural Obligation 15 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 McCann v UK – The beginnings of a procedural obligation under Article 2 18 ECHR 2.3 Kaya v Turkey – The need for independence and public scrutiny 20 2.4 Ergi v Turkey – The burden to initiate an investigation falls on the state 22 ii 2.5 Powell v UK and Tarariyeva v Russia – Article 2 and failures on the part of 22 healthcare workers 2.6 Salman v Turkey – The burden on the state to explain deaths in custody 27 2.7 Keenan v UK – Responsibility for self-inflicted deaths in prison 28 2.8 Jordan et al v UK – The essential elements of the procedural obligation are 30 confirmed 2.8.1 The facts in brief 30 2.8.1.1 Jordan v UK 30 2.8.1.2 Kelly v UK 31 2.8.1.3 McKerr v UK 31 2.8.1.4 Shanaghan v UK 32 2.8.2 The law 33 2.8.3 Application to the cases 35 2.8.3.1 The police investigations – Effectiveness 36 2.8.3.2 The police investigations – Openness and independence 36 2.8.3.3 The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions 37 2.8.3.4 McKerr and The Stalker/Sampson Inquiry 37 2.8.3.5 The inquests – Effectiveness 38 2.8.3.6 The inquests – The public nature of proceedings and access for next-of-kin 39 2.8.3.7 The inquests – Delay 40 2.9 Edwards v UK – Openness and the public interest in cases 40 2.10 Nachova v Bulgaria – The test for whether force is lawful 42 2.11 Oneryildiz v Turkey – Some clarity on Article 13 and an “effective judicial 43 system” 2.12 Ramsahai v Netherlands – There can be a breach of Article 2 even where a 45 killing is lawful 2.13 Al-Skeini v UK – The procedural obligation where investigators are 47 hindered by circumstance 2.14 Conclusions 48 Chapter 3 – Preliminary Investigations 53 3.1 Introduction 54 3.2 Deaths in prison 54 iii 3.2.1 Police investigations into prison deaths 54 3.2.1.1 Openness and liaison with family, community and public 56 3.2.1.2 Disclosure to other investigating bodies 60 3.2.2. PPO investigations into prison deaths 61 3.2.2.1 Openness to family, public and other investigatory bodies 62 3.3 IPCC investigations into deaths involving police 66 3.3.1 The review of the IPCC’s work in investigating deaths 68 3.3.2 The scope of IPCC investigations 69 3.3.2.1. The IPCC’s powers, remit and competence 70 3.3.3 Family liaison and openness 72 3.3.3.1 Openness to the family 73 3.3.3.2 Liaison with the general public 75 3.4 Conclusions 77 Chapter 4 – The Evolving Nature and Purposes of Inquests 81 4.1 Introduction 82 4.2 The early history of the inquest 83 4.3 Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century inquests 85 4.3.1 Inquests into deaths in prison 86 4.4 The evolving constitutional significance of inquests 88 4.5 Thomas Wakley and the inquest as radical theatre 92 4.5.1 Thomas Wakley 93 4.5.2 The inquest into the death of John Lees 97 4.6 Ongoing tensions about the openness of nineteenth-century inquests 102 4.7 Separating inquests from the criminal and civil justice systems 105 4.8 A changing society 110 4.9 Failing inquests: Blair Peach, the Deptford fire and Jamieson 111 4.9.1 Blair Peach 113 4.9.2 New Cross/Deptford fire 115 4.9.3 What it means to know 'how' someone died – Jamieson 118 4.10 Conclusions 121 iv Chapter 5 – Modern Inquests and Inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 123 5.1 The scope and openness of modern inquests 125 5.1.1 The inquest as the forum for fulfilling Article 2 125 5.1.2 The purposes and scope of Article 2 compliant inquests 125 5.1.2.1 Amin – The purpose of an Article 2 compliant investigation 126 5.1.2.2 Middleton – The scope of an Article 2 compliant inquest 128 5.1.3 How inquests are open to the public 130 5.1.3.1 Openness to public and press attending and observing proceedings 131 5.1.3.2 The openness of inquests to the active participation of the public 132 5.1.3.3 Who are ‘the public’ in inquests? 135 5.1.4 Disclosure 136 5.1.5 Public funding for families’ legal representation 139 5.1.6 Public interest immunity 143 5.2 Azelle Rodney, secret evidence and the Inquiries Act 2005 144 5.2.1 Comparing inquiries to inquests 149 5.2.1.1 The scope of inquiries 149 5.2.1.2 Openness of inquiries to the participation of the family of deceased 150 5.2.1.3 The openness of inquiries to the public and press observing proceedings 151 5.2.1.4 The manner in which inquiries conclude 153 5.2.2 The Azelle Rodney Inquiry 156 5.2.2.1 Restrictions on the openness of the Azelle Rodney Inquiry 158 5.3 Conclusions 164 PART 2 – Theory Chapter 6 – Harm in the Aftermath of Deaths at the Hands of the State 169 6.1 Introduction 170 6.2 Justice 170 6.2.1 Justice in inquests and related processes 170 6.2.2 Rectificatory versus primary justice 171 6.3 Negative morality 173 6.3.1 Defining ‘moral harm’ 173 6.3.2 What is a negative morality approach? 175 v 6.4 Potential harms in the aftermath of a death 178 6.4.1 First-order harms 179 6.4.1.1 Family associated first-order bare harms 179 6.4.1.2 First-order moral harms 180 6.4.1.3 Conclusions on first-order harms 181 6.4.2 Second-order harms 182 6.4.2.1 Injustice surrounding perceived failures of the criminal and/or civil justice 183 systems 6.4.2.2 Moral harms related to the narrative surrounding a death 183 6.4.2.3 Some illustrative examples of the expression of these types of moral harm 187 6.4.3 Justice discourses which appear to address analogous harms 191 Chapter 7 – Procedural Justice, Legitimacy and Justice as Recognition 193 7.1 Introduction 194 7.2 Procedural justice 194 7.2.1 The relationship between procedures and outcomes 195 7.2.2 Intrinsic versus instrumental values of procedures 197 7.2.3 Procedural justice and legitimacy 200 7.2.3.1 What is legitimacy? 201 7.2.3.2 Political legitimacy 204 7.2.4 Conclusion 206 7.3 Recognition theory 207 7.3.1 Introduction to recognition theory 207 7.3.2 The core content of theories of recognition 209 7.3.2.1 The observational element of recognition theory 210 7.3.2.2 Intersubjective relationships and the development of relations-to-self 210 Love and self-confidence 212 Rights and self-respect 213 Solidarity and self-esteem 215 7.3.2.3 The moral claims of recognition theories 217 7.4 Conclusion to Part 2 218 vi PART 3 – Synthesis Chapter 8 – Truth commissions 223 8.1 Introduction – The significance of ‘transitional justice’ debates to the thesis 224 8.2 What is ‘transitional justice’? 225 8.2.1 The different potential concerns of transitional justice 225 8.2.2 Important differences between truth commissions, and inquests and inquiries 227 8.3 Truth commissions 229 8.3.1 The quantitative aims of truth commissions 230 8.3.1.1 Truth discovery – factual judgments 231 8.3.1.2 An officially endorsed account 232 8.3.1.3 Narrative formation and listening to victims 235 8.3.1.4 Reaching moral judgments 236 8.3.1.5 Making recommendations 237 8.3.2 The qualitative goals of truth commissions 237 8.3.2.1 Are truth commissions just political compromises? 237 8.3.2.2 Restorative justice and Ubuntu 240 8.3.2.3 Truth as justice 242 8.3.2.4 Justice as recognition as a normative basis for justice strategies found in 246 truth commissions 8.4 Conclusion 252 Chapter 9 – A Context-Specific Conception of Open Justice 255 9.1 Introduction 256 9.2 The procedural manifestation of openness 259 9.2.1 When investigations are held 260 9.2.1.1 When preliminary investigations are held 260 9.2.1.2 When inquests are held 261 9.2.1.3 When inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 are held 261 9.2.1.4 The scope of preliminary investigations 262 9.2.1.5 The scope of inquests 263 9.2.1.6 Public interest immunity in inquests 264 vii 9.2.1.7 The scope of inquiries