%20(2).png)
In order to ensure compliance with Article 2, there is a general duty on the State to conduct a full investigation into any death where it may bear some responsibility. This aspect of the right to life is vital in order to find flaws in the approach of public authorities, to provide much needed answers to questions that the family of the deceased are likely to have, and to prevent any similar future incidences. This blog post will discuss a high-profile case where Article 2 played a pivotal role in securing an inquest for the mother of a victim of a brutal murder; the case will be used to lead the discussion as to why this element of the right to life is so important, and how dangerous it could be if the Human Rights Act were to be repealed.
The facts and some non-facts
Convicted rapist Anthony Rice who, at the time, was on licence from prison murdered Naomi Bryant in August 2005. His previous convictions included rape, violent attempted rape, indecent assault, assault and threats to kill. His last conviction for attempted rape led to a life sentence, where the judge commented, “This was as bad an attempted rape as one can imagine … his next offence will be murder … if released before cure, he will kill”. He was released from prison after 16 years, and 9 months later he brutally murdered Naomi in her own home. There then unfolded an understandable public outcry as to how such an event could have taken place, particularly considering Rice’s conviction history and the fact that he was supposedly under supervision. It was mentioned that human rights considerations had played a part, which led to predictable headlines such as “Killers’ Human Rights Placed above Public Safety” appearing on the pages of tabloids like the Daily Mail. After closer analysis, however, it appears that these ‘human rights considerations’ included the decision of the probation staff to change the terms of his licence without the approval of the parole board, to allow Rice to stay out late on Wednesdays to attend a pub quiz night. Unless it were shown that permission to attend pub quiz nights was a concrete right in the ECHR (in which case I, for one, would be the first to uphold such a right!), it is apparent that the use of the term ‘human rights’ in this context is a prime example of the fearmongering right-wing press attempting to rally the general public against the Human Rights Act.
Where the Human Rights Act did come into play, however, was where Naomi’s mother succeeded in her demands for a public inquiry into the murder of her daughter. The coroner had initially decided not to hold an inquiry because Rice had already been convicted. However, Article 2, apart from holding that the State should not deprive someone of their life, also includes the necessity of conducting a full inquiry into deaths where the State may bear some responsibility. Such inquiries, in order to be compliant with the Right, should have the following characteristics: to be initiated by the State of its own free will, independent, effective, sufficiently open to public scrutiny and reasonably prompt, while the family of the victim should also be involved. Liberty, a UK-based organisation that campaigns for civil liberties and human rights, were at the forefront of the argument that the State would be acting unlawfully by not holding such an inquest. The argument proved successful and an inquiry was undertaken.
Results of the inquiry
The inquiry came to the conclusion that “a number of deficiencies [were found], in the form of mistakes, misjudgements and miscommunications at various stages throughout the whole process of [the] case that amount[ed] to” a collective failure. One such deficiency is that the authorities failed to bring forward the file from Rice’s previous prison sentence, which would have shown that he was a former offender against girls as well as against adult women – this was then a contributing factor in the assessment that he was ready to move to open prison conditions. It is thought that this transfer into a Category D environment helped carve the way for Rice’s eventual release, by creating the expectation that it was a matter of ‘when’ rather than ‘if’ his detention would end. Furthermore, there was a finding that the level of Rice’s supervision at the hostel he stayed in after his release had reduced from “a curfew that previously was not being monitored in any systematic way [to one that] was subject to even less control”. These conclusions would likely have revealed at least some of the answers that Naomi’s mother would have undoubtedly been searching for. Highlighting these deficiencies can also help the State identify loopholes in its approach, so that any future such incidences can be avoided. Therefore, countless people may well have benefited from this inquiry.
The importance of Article 2
This element of the Right to Life is indisputably vital for those family members that have lost loved ones, potentially at the fault of the State. The coroners’ inquests that would have taken place prior to the introduction of the Human Rights Act would have been much less extensive, merely providing the bare facts for a death certificate. There would have been no determination of fault and, arguably most importantly, the government and public authorities would not have been held accountable for any failures to protect citizens due to oversight or negligence. The general duty that accompanies Article 2 can appear to be a burden for governments; the issue of funding court costs and legal expenses for families being one of many reasons the State may be averse to such inquiries. This, combined with the potential bad publicity and loss of public faith in the State, leads one to question whether the government would actively choose to be placed under this burden if it were given the choice, or would the inquiry system be diluted to the extent that no one would ever receive the answers they needed if a loved one were to die at the hands of the State?
Title quote - Thomas Paine