McCann and Others v United Kingdom

McCann and Others v United Kingdom
Case	McCann and Others v United Kingdom
Court	European Court of Human Rights
Citation	(1995) 21 EHRR 97
Decided	27 September 1995
Judges	European Court of Human Rights
Keywords	Article 2, right to life, use of force, Northern Ireland, Special Air Service

McCann and Others v United Kingdom

McCann and Others v United Kingdom was a landmark decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the use of lethal force by state agents. The case arose from an operation in Gibraltar involving the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Special Air Service, and British security agencies, and has been cited in debates involving human rights law, counter-terrorism, and public law across Europe.

Background

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the conflict commonly referred to as the Troubles in Northern Ireland involved paramilitary campaigns by organizations such as the Provisional Irish Republican Army, the Irish National Liberation Army, and loyalist groups including the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Operations by United Kingdom security services, including the Special Air Service and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, were part of an intelligence-led strategy dating back to incidents like the Birmingham pub bombings aftermath and the IRA hunger strikes. International human rights scrutiny intensified after events such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry and jurisprudence under the European Court of Human Rights including Lawless v. Ireland and Harman v. United Kingdom influenced oversight of lethal force.

Facts of the Case

In March 1988, three members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army—Daniel McCann, Sean Savage, and Maura O’Neill—were the focus of a joint operation by British Intelligence units and the Special Air Service in Gibraltar. Intelligence allegedly indicated a planned bombing targeting visiting members of the Royal Family including Prince Charles. Surveillance by MI5 and operational planning involved personnel from the Metropolitan Police Service and military elements. The three were confronted on a public street; armed soldiers fired shots leading to the immediate deaths of McCann and Savage and the wounding and subsequent death of O’Neill. The inquest system and subsequent domestic inquiries, including proceedings under the Coroners Act, did not lead to criminal prosecution of the soldiers involved, prompting applications to the European Commission of Human Rights and then the European Court of Human Rights.

Legal Issues and Proceedings

The applicants—relatives of the deceased—alleged violations of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case raised interpretive questions about the scope of Article 2 in situations of counter-terrorism operations, including whether the use of lethal force must be “absolutely necessary” or “no more than strictly necessary” and standards for effective investigation under Article 2 as established in cases such as Khan v. United Kingdom and Airey v. Ireland. Proceedings engaged judges from chambers of the European Court of Human Rights and involved submissions from the United Kingdom Government, nongovernmental organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and third-party interventions referencing jurisprudence from the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

European Court of Human Rights Judgment

On 27 September 1995, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its Grand Chamber judgment. The Court held that there was no violation of Article 2 on the facts, finding that soldiers honestly believed lethal force was necessary to prevent a terrorist act, applying standards related to honest belief and planning directives akin to principles in McCann v. UK (Commission) submissions. However, the Court found a violation of Article 2 concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the use of lethal force, emphasizing procedural obligations similar to those in Khan v. United Kingdom and Tyrer v. United Kingdom. The judgment referenced standards from prior case law such as Ocalan v. Turkey and required that states conduct prompt, thorough, and independent inquiries consistent with the Convention and obligations under instruments like the European Convention on Human Rights enforcement mechanisms.

Impact and Significance

The decision has had wide influence on policing, military operations, and European human rights jurisprudence. It shaped doctrine on the substantive and procedural elements of Article 2, affecting policy in jurisdictions including France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. The judgment informed training and rules of engagement for units such as the Special Air Service and police forces like the Metropolitan Police Service, and influenced national legislation and inquiry practices exemplified by reforms after the Hillsborough disaster and inquiries presided over by figures such as Lord Bonomy and Lord Saville. Academic commentary in journals such as the European Human Rights Law Review and texts from publishers like Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press have treated the case as pivotal in balancing counter-terrorism and human rights.

Subsequent Developments and Related Jurisprudence

Following the judgment, subsequent Strasbourg jurisprudence refined procedural obligations under Article 2 in cases including R (on the application of M) v Secretary of State for the Home Department-style domestic reviews and international cases like Al-Skeini v United Kingdom and Oyal v Turkey. National courts in the United Kingdom and across the Council of Europe implemented investigative reforms influenced by the ruling and later decisions such as Nachova v. Bulgaria and Velikova v. Bulgaria. The case remains a cornerstone cited in debates involving the European Court of Human Rights and legislative responses to terrorism, including measures adopted after events such as the September 11 attacks and legislative instruments like the European Arrest Warrant.

Category:European Court of Human Rights cases