‘The appellant argued that all the relevant evidence pointed to the decision not to hold the inquiry being a sham. The basis on which it had been suggested that this was a decision taken in the public interest was, Mrs Finucane argued, spurious. Moreover, the process of consultation and discussions was entirely cosmetic. The outcome had been predetermined. (See Lord Kerr’s summary of the grounds of challenge at paras 50-52)’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 26th March 2019

Source: ukscblog.com

‘On 27 February 2019 the Supreme Court gave judgment in the appeal brought by the widow of the Belfast solicitor, Pat Finucane, against the refusal of the Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to hold a public inquiry into her husband’s death. Giving the leading judgment, Lord Kerr (with whom Lady Hale, Lord Hodge and Lady Black agreed) allowed the appeal on the basis that there had been a breach of the investigative obligation under ECHR, art 2. The Supreme Court found that although Mrs Finucane had a legitimate expectation that there would be a public inquiry into Mr Finucane’s death she had not shown that the government’s decision not to fulfil this promise was made in bad faith or that it was not based on genuine policy grounds. Lord Carnwarth gave a concurring judgment in which he commented on the criticism that had been made of obiter remarks he had made in United Policyholders Group v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2016] UKPC 17 in relation in relation to the necessity for a detriment to have been suffered before a claim for substantive legitimate expectation could be made.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 26th March 2019

Source: ukscblog.com